Who will be positively affected by the windfall tax elimination?

[TinaM]

How it is fair that you now get twice the benefits of other people who made the same amount of income and paid FICA on all of theirs?

Still don’t understand. I don’t get twice of anything. And I worked for 42 years before retiring. It wasn’t my fault that the state of California didn’t take out social security for the 15 years I was a teacher. I still got a lot taken out but it was for a small pension. Your anger still makes no sense to me. Many of the teachers I worked with were second career teachers and had paid into social security for many years before becoming a teacher. Why do we now lose it?

I sense a lot of bitterness from someone who didn’t pay their dues, maybe? Did you work for over 40 years of your life and pay into retirement that whole time? If so, then you should get what is owed you. If someone then decides they will only give you 40% of that, how would you feel?

I'm on a very limited income, even with a small pension and 40% of my SS. Barely get enough to live independently and can’t go back to work because of a disability. Do you think I’m double-dipping? The bitterness makes me sad.

 

[dilettante]

I paid my dues all the way back into the 1960s, and I paid FICA on all of it.

I get the distinct impression that you don't know how Social Security works. I'll never see 50% of what I put in and be lucky to get 46%.

All you are doing is making it easier for Social Security to be privatized.

 

[Veronica]

Still don’t understand. I don’t get twice of anything. And I worked for 42 years before retiring. It wasn’t my fault that the state of California didn’t take out social security for the 15 years I was a teacher. I still got a lot taken out but it was for a small pension. Your anger still makes no sense to me. Many of the teachers I worked with were second career teachers and had paid into social security for many years before becoming a teacher. Why do we now lose it?

I sense a lot of bitterness from someone who didn’t pay their dues, maybe? Did you work for over 40 years of your life and pay into retirement that whole time? If so, then you should get what is owed you. If someone then decides they will only give you 40% of that, how would you feel?

I'm on a very limited income, even with a small pension and 40% of my SS. Barely get enough to live independently and can’t go back to work because of a disability. Do you think I’m double-dipping? The bitterness makes me sad.

I too don't understand why people are against it. My thoughts are if you have the paid quarters then you should qualify for all the SS benefits. Now if you never paid in then same as everybody else. No. But then again you might qualify for spousal or widows benefits if your spouse had enuf paid quarters. To me this is the same as the non working spouse who didnt pay into SS and is collecting benefits.

 

[Nathan]

Don’t understand your question. I paid into social security for 20 years and private pension for 15 years. I was supposed to get $900 a month social security but only get $450. How is that fair.

It is in no way fair, just a money grab take away from workers.

 

[dilettante]

Watch the video, it explains the entire thing.

 

[againstthegrain]

I too don't understand why people are against it.

It requires a certain brand of anger and jealously, and btwn you and me it's healthiest to ignore them.

 

[Nathan]

Watch the video, it explains the entire thing.

I did watch the video in it's entirety, it was of course evident right away that he is anti H.R.82, and throughout "Dr. Ed's" 18 minute spiel I was hoping that he would present some specifics on why repealing the WEP provision was unfair, or bad. Dr. Ed would repeat blanket statements such as the "3%" (public employees) were going to get "more" than the typical S.S. earner. That plus, the allegation that the WEP repeal is a "set-up" to privatize Social Security.
Now, the present Administration and the party that dominates the House and Senate may well pursue S.S. privitization, but that has been part of their agenda for a long time. Before long however it became evident that the video was a come on to drum up business for Dr. Ed's commercial "help" services....https://linktr.ee/MyGovExpert.




My opinion: Snake Oil peddler.

 

[againstthegrain]

I did watch the video in it's entirety, it was of course evident right away that he is anti H.R.82, and throughout "Dr. Ed's" 18 minute spiel I was hoping that he would present some specifics on why repealing the WEP provision was unfair, or bad. Dr. Ed would repeat blanket statements such as the "3%" (public employees) were going to get "more" than the typical S.S. earner. That plus, the allegation that the WEP repeal is a "set-up" to privatize Social Security.
Now, the present Administration and the party that dominates the House and Senate may well pursue S.S. privitization, but that has been part of their agenda for a long time. Before long however it became evident that the video was a come on to drum up business for Dr. Ed's commercial "help" services....https://linktr.ee/MyGovExpert.




My opinion: Snake Oil peddler.

More clickbait from utoob university.

 

[Brookswood]

Don’t understand your question. I paid into social security for 20 years and private pension for 15 years. I was supposed to get $900 a month social security but only get $450. How is that fair.

Because your benefit is not based only on the years you paid in, But also total income earned over your total working lifetime. People forget or don’t know about that part of the SS formula and the bend points that reduce the payout. You are paid the higher percentage because you look like a lower income person income person Which you aren’t. Look up social security bend points.

Be happy, you are getting a nice little windfall compared to those of us who had to pay SS taxes on all our income. The other 97% is paying for this one way or the other.

 

[Lethe200]

>>Because your benefit is not based only on the years you paid in, But also total income earned over your total working lifetime. >>

I don't believe you're correct on this.

IF you worked for 40 quarters (which my spouse did) and THEN worked at another job where SocSec was NOT taken out, you qualify for a SS retirement benefit, but it does not count any income from non-contributing years.

Those non-contributing years are calculated as "zero" salary earned. This is exactly what is shown on my spouse's SS record on-line. He has a string of almost three decades of "zeroes" after his 11 years of contributing, starting from the time he was a teen-ager until his non-SS job began. His last year of SS-eligible earnings totaled a munificent $12,384 that year.

Because of his later earnings and earned (non-SS) pension from 42 yrs total with the same company, his SocSec benefit was reduced 60%. Instead of the approximately $1,300/monthly, he currently receives less than $600/monthly.

So even at 100% benefit, his earned SS benefit should not be considered unfair to anyone. He paid SS taxes and was qualified for a benefit - not a large one, but one he earned working at a minimum wage job (back when minimum wages really WERE minimal per hour, LOL).

As for "double-dipping", MOST people do not work for one company for 4 decades. I have worked for at least a dozen employers in 36 yrs and have 3 separate small pensions as a result.

According to my state's pension data, the average pensioner's length of employment averages only 20 yrs. Even union employees fall under the Rule of 80, so to retire at 50 at full pension would require working for 30 years. Even retiring at age 55 would require 25 years.

It should also be noted that many state agencies and companies require continuous employment for the Rule of 80; exceptions have to be applied for and approved, and it is not automatic to do so.

 

[Nathan]

I don't believe you're correct on this.

IF you worked for 40 quarters (which my spouse did) and THEN worked at another job where SocSec was NOT taken out, you qualify for a SS retirement benefit, but it does not count any income from non-contributing years.

Those non-contributing years are calculated as "zero" salary earned. This is exactly what is shown on my spouse's SS record on-line. He has a string of almost three decades of "zeroes" after his 11 years of contributing, starting from the time he was a teen-ager until his non-SS job began. His last year of SS-eligible earnings totaled a munificent $12,384 that year.

Because of his later earnings and earned (non-SS) pension from 42 yrs total with the same company, his SocSec benefit was reduced 60%. Instead of the approximately $1,300/monthly, he currently receives less than $600/monthly.

So even at 100% benefit, his earned SS benefit should not be considered unfair to anyone. He paid SS taxes and was qualified for a benefit - not a large one, but one he earned working at a minimum wage job (back when minimum wages really WERE minimal per hour, LOL).

As for "double-dipping", MOST people do not work for one company for 4 decades. I have worked for at least a dozen employers in 36 yrs and have 3 separate small pensions as a result.

According to my state's pension data, the average pensioner's length of employment averages only 20 yrs. Even union employees fall under the Rule of 80, so to retire at 50 at full pension would require working for 30 years. Even retiring at age 55 would require 25 years.

It should also be noted that many state agencies and companies require continuous employment for the Rule of 80; exceptions have to be applied for and approved, and it is not automatic to do so.

@Lethe200 , thank you for explaining the situation in simple terms, and in the language of the Social Security calculations vernacular.

 

[Brookswood]

My wife taught for 15 years in Michigan where she paid into Social Security. When we moved to New England, our state did not participate in social security. She taught in here for another 14 years. Then she retired at her full SS retirement age.

The government calculated her monthly Social Security benefit based solely on the 15 years she had paid into the program. Fair, right?

They then paid her HALF of that calculated benefit. I guess I don't get how this is fair. Maybe I'm just a bit dim.

You aren’t dim. The SS benefit calculation is too complicated and hard to explain.
Read up on the bend points. You are only looking at 1/2 the picture. its more than how much a person pays into SS. Total income also counts since lower income people get a bigger percentage of what they put into it. But, Congress has given in to the 3% who have screamed the loudest at the expense of the other 97%, so the game is over.

Why are people getting upset over this at this time? The games is over. The bad call won’t be reversed. Sometimes those in the right lose. It’s politics. The rest of us should plan on six months less of a full benefit as the price for this change. Plan for it. Don't waste time complaining.

 

[TinaM]

I don't believe you're correct on this.

IF you worked for 40 quarters (which my spouse did) and THEN worked at another job where SocSec was NOT taken out, you qualify for a SS retirement benefit, but it does not count any income from non-contributing years.

Those non-contributing years are calculated as "zero" salary earned. This is exactly what is shown on my spouse's SS record on-line. He has a string of almost three decades of "zeroes" after his 11 years of contributing, starting from the time he was a teen-ager until his non-SS job began. His last year of SS-eligible earnings totaled a munificent $12,384 that year.

Because of his later earnings and earned (non-SS) pension from 42 yrs total with the same company, his SocSec benefit was reduced 60%. Instead of the approximately $1,300/monthly, he currently receives less than $600/monthly.

So even at 100% benefit, his earned SS benefit should not be considered unfair to anyone. He paid SS taxes and was qualified for a benefit - not a large one, but one he earned working at a minimum wage job (back when minimum wages really WERE minimal per hour, LOL).

As for "double-dipping", MOST people do not work for one company for 4 decades. I have worked for at least a dozen employers in 36 yrs and have 3 separate small pensions as a result.

According to my state's pension data, the average pensioner's length of employment averages only 20 yrs. Even union employees fall under the Rule of 80, so to retire at 50 at full pension would require working for 30 years. Even retiring at age 55 would require 25 years.

It should also be noted that many state agencies and companies require continuous employment for the Rule of 80; exceptions have to be applied for and approved, and it is not automatic to do so.

Yes. What you said is correct and I think the naysayers are buying into propaganda that makes them think someone else is getting something that they aren’t.

 

[Brookswood]

Those non-contributing years are calculated as "zero" salary earned. This is exactly what is shown on my spouse's SS record on-line. He has a string of almost three decades of "zeroes" after his 11 years of contributing, starting from the time he was a teen-ager until his non-SS job began. His last year of SS-eligible earnings totaled a munificent $12,384 that year.

That is exactly my point and the reason we had things like WEP. He looks like a low income earner to the SS system when he is not. He earned a lot of money in his job where he did not pay SS Taxes. But, because he looks like a low income earner he get he get the lower income boost in payments that SS give lower income people. WEP adjusted for that unfairness.

It’s the breakpoints that control the payout and also must also be considered. And the breakpoints in the payout are what those who claim WEP is “unfair” leave out. If every body got the same percentage payment it would not matter but lower income people with no pension plan get a higher percentage. And he isn’t one. All WEP did was adjust for that discrepancy.

Social Security pays lower income people proportionally more than higher income people. It’s what we do as a country to help lower income seniors get by. Yes, the system is complicated and takes some study to understand. But, our elected leaders surely must have understood how SS and the payment breakpoints work, but they voted to eliminate WEP and against the best interest of most SS recipients regardless. That is what bothers me the most.

But, it is over as I said earlier. And there is no point in kicking a dead horse. This change has move us six months closer to SS running out of funds to make the full payment monthly payment to everybody. Hopefully, our Congress will do a good job of ”fixing” SS so it does not run out of money.

Enough said.