This message was self-deleted by its author

[dalton99a]

This message was self-deleted by its author (dalton99a) on Wed Dec 25, 2024, 02:48 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Drum]

1. Mazel tov!

[question everything]

2. And Musk is ready with his "DOGE" scissors

[valleyrogue]

3. Not happening. n/t

[dalton99a]

8. To see how many people will want to Luigi him

[A Brand New World]

4. I am so happy! This has affected me since I retired in 2017.

My social security has been reduced by 50% because I spent the last 21 years of my career in state government and have a state pension. The first 23 years was in social security jobs. This will make the budget easier to manage.

[madville]

16. Very similar to me

My first 25 working years I paid into social security, my last 20 working years will be in my current city/municipal job that has an exempt pension. I was looking at a 50% reduction to my SS once I started drawing it but this is great news!

[valleyrogue]

5. It took over a decade, but it finally happened.

Last edited Sat Dec 21, 2024, 02:40 AM - Edit history (1)

The WEP in particular was outright theft of earned benefits from those of us who worked in state government agencies that didn't pay into SS, no matter how small the state pension amount. I got $120 deducted off my SS benefit when I took SS early at age 62 in 2017. This was about a third of my dinky Nevada pension of $341. The "reasoning" behind such a capricious penalty was the idea that public employees have "big pensions." Never mind anybody with a "big pension" would never earn enough quarters to even qualify for SS in the first place. It was those of us in the middle, who worked in midlife in non-SS covered employment but didn't work 30 years in "substantial earnings" employment not to be docked with this penalty. And having to pay Medicare Part B made my total loss per month $300 bucks. However, it will be nice to get that $120 per month back.

[dalton99a]

6. +1. It is a horrible injustice that keeps some retirees in abject poverty

Last edited Sat Dec 21, 2024, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)

“We have spent decades working to pass this legislation, and tonight is a victory for all the public servants who will finally get the Social Security they have earned,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat who was a lead co-sponsor of the bill. The bill marked Mr. Brown’s final legislative achievement, after he lost a brutal and expensive re-election bid last month.

“Tonight, Congress ensured that police officers, firefighters, teachers and public servants across Ohio will be able to retire with the Social Security they spent their lives paying into,” he said.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and a lead sponsor of the measure, framed the issue as a “long overdue” matter of fairness affecting teachers, firefighters and police officers as well as some federal employees who were hired before 1984, when the federal pension system was brought under the Social Security system.

In a floor speech Wednesday, Ms. Collins cited one of her constituents, a retired female schoolteacher who had to return to work at age 72 after her husband’s death to make financial ends meet. The woman’s husband was a Navy veteran who paid into Social Security for 40 years, but since she received a public pension from the school system, her surviving spousal benefits through Social Security were reduced by two-thirds.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/us/congress-social-security.html

[LeftInTX]

7. Yay!!! Great news!! I didn't know what the bill was.

This effects alot of teacher retirees here in Texas.

[sheshe2]

9. Thank you to the Senate and to President Joseph Biden.

Also a huge thank you for unanimously passing the cancer research bill for children that is now on its way to Bidens desk.

Bravo.

Also a huge thank you to our Congress, Republicans and Democrats that voted to keep our government up and working for all the people.

This despite 'Resdent elect Elon Musk who on his own (okay, a little help from his mini me trump) tried to sink it.

[valleyrogue]

10. This kind of bipartisanship is the way it is supposed to be. That is the way it USED to be

before the radical right ruined the GOP and had a "no compromise" mentality.

Chuck Schumer deserves a lot of credit for getting this legislation to the Senate floor. If this had been McConnell, the legislation would have died in its tracks. The late Orrin Hatch killed this proposal over and over, as did the House Ways and Means Committee.

This repeal will help many people.

[sheshe2]

11. I can't tell you how happy I am right now.

Both the Senate and Congress came through with flying colors. They did and I am going to give them a lot of credit for what they made possible today.

I may be heartbroken in the near future, however I will celebrate this day.

[MadameButterfly]

12. so, passed in both houses?"

I'm not celebrating yet

[dalton99a]

14. It is on Biden's desk

[valleyrogue]

17. Yes. It passed both houses overwhelmingly. President Biden will sign it. n/t

[senseandsensibility]

34. When does this go into effect?

Immediately? I am in a similar situation.

[dalton99a]

36. Retroactive to January 2024

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/82/text/pcs?format=txt&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22social+security+fairness%22%7D&r=1&s=5

[senseandsensibility]

38. Thanks!

Any idea of when the payments will be made? I also e-mailed my Rep (Zoe Lofgren) so I should hear from her soon.

[dalton99a]

45. I suspect Social Security will issue an official statement with details after Biden signs the bill

[MichMan]

13. Why were some government employees exempted from SS in the first place ?

No one else can opt out. Was it considered inferior and good enough for everyone else (like the rest of us) except them?

[madville]

15. Our pension is better than SS

I am currently exempt from SS at my current local government job and we contribute 5% to our municipal pension and get 2.25% credit towards that pension for each year of service. So someone that works for the city for 30 years retires on 67.5% of their highest 5 years average salary. Work 20 years get 45%, etc. Our city owns and operates all of the utilities, even multiple power plants, so it’s always been well funded. We also get a 5% 401k match, so it’s typical for retirees to have hundreds of thousands in that at retirement to supplement retirement.

I contributed to SS for over 20 years and was looking at it being reduced 50% once I drew it because I’m eligible for an exempt pension so this is great news, will be around an extra $1000-$1200 a month from SS.

I’ve always been a retirement hound though. Did 20 years in the military (11 active and 9 reserve) so get that pension, get my VA disability compensation, I was a federal employee for awhile and bought my military time into it so will get a modest FERS pension at age 62. Then I’ll probably do 20 years at this city job so will get that pension and now my full social security with no penalty.

[MichMan]

18. Rules for thee, but not for me.

Doesn't matter what pension or other retirement avenues are available in the private sector, everyone is forced to contribute to SS (whether they like it or not), even the self employed. Not only that, if they fail to do so they get fined by the IRS.

Yet, public employees are permitted to opt out of the system that is required for everyone else because it isn't good enough for them.

[madville]

19. It's not an "opt out"

We don’t have a choice. Some states and municipalities chose not to participate in social security long ago, I believe they cut off the creation of any new exempt pension plans in the early 1980s.

But yes it is better, it’s a great recruitment and retention tool.

[alcuno]

35. Not Sure How It Got Started - I Paid 10% Each Check To Teacher Retirement System

We didn't pay into social security. But I was someone with 40 credits into social security for previous jobs so I never thought I'd get anything. Been collecting social security for one year with a 60% reduction

[madville]

37. Just getting what's owed to you

It was never fair that people vested in social security had their benefits reduced because they also were part of another retirement system.

[MichMan]

40. I don't think it's fair that some government jobs are exempted from SS while everyone else is required to contribute

If Social Secuity is good enough for everyone else, why not government employees?

"We have created a fantastic retirement insurance program called Social Security. It's required for everyone to contribute to it from their paycheck, but it so good, you will love it. Oh, just one thing; it only applies to all of you in the private sector; we have something better for us who work for the government"

[madville]

41. This is filling in a gap

People that paid into both social security and some exempt retirement plans over their careers were getting penalized for it due to a Reagan era law, this fixes that.

Federal employees (since 1981) and most state employees pay into both social security and their pension plans and get the full benefits from each. This is overturning a Reagan era law that penalized those in legacy pension plans that were also vested in social security, it’s not many these days, just a few million people.

[MichMan]

42. Why were any plans exempted in the first place ?

The only plausible reason is that they didn't think Social Security was good enough.

Rules for thee and not for me

[madville]

43. Powerful unions at the time

The railroad retirement plans were all exempted and still are, many teacher and university retirement plans, municipal and utility retirement plans, etc. Those unions back in the day held enough influence to get exemptions and keep employees exclusively under their own retirement systems. Federal government employees were exempt from social security until the early 1980s when the current FERS retirement system brought new hires into social security in addition to a federal pension.

[MichMan]

44. Got it

Everyone in the private sector (union or not) is required to participate in Social Security with zero exceptions, but government employees are a special class and are thus exempted from a system that they view as inferior and inadequate. Even though they require the rest of us to contribute to it whether we like it or not.

Just like Congress isn't actually required to follow their own laws that they demand everyone else adhere to. Rules for thee but not for me.

[madville]

46. They earned those social security benefits

Any other retirement plans they were in should be immaterial, which this law change corrects. Reducing social security benefits for those affected employees was theft for the last 40 years.

[mackdaddy]

20. But if you never worked a Public Government job, ALL you get is just SS. They used to call that Double Dipping.

So I never worked a job for any substantial time that was anything but a Social Security contributed job.

I remember back in the 80s when they eliminated pensions and put everyone on a 401k with company matches. Well the 'matching' faded away in just a few years. I was self employed for a time and then got to pay twice for my SS taxes, both employee and employer contributions. 401K accounts are great if you know how to invest, but every time a republican took over there was a major crash and the account bounced around like superball under a table.

But, my ONLY retirement income is Social Security plus my own personal savings in my 401k/IRA accounts. So I worked half a century too, just not smart enough to work a government job, so I get less? The answer is yes.

Fortunately I structured my life to be able to live on less than 2k per month total even with over 20% of that going to health insurance and copays.

I am not saying that anyone who payed into the SS system should not get benefits. It is just that there were some valid reasons for the partial benefits if you were only in the system for part of your working career.

Actually I just hope that the DOGEbags leave me with any retirement income.

[RandomNumbers]

21. Yes, I remember the frenzy about "double-dipping" pensioners back then

I wasn't even paying much attention to politics at that time. It really strikes me how what enraged the masses back then, now goes the other direction, and the masses direct their ire at other people.

I guess it keeps the politicians in business, and saves them from having to spend time on people who are too busy struggling with their daily lives to use their voices in politics effectively.

To be clear, I don't know enough to know in what ways the original "anti double dipping" policy was poorly written and unfair. It may be that it needed adjustment. I'm just musing that the folks affected by this generally aren't those worst-off in our society - but they were able to get the megaphone and politician's attention.

[valleyrogue]

22. Collecting a pension and getting Social Security is NOT "double dipping." That was a right-wing LIE peddled years ago.

The REAL definition of "double dipping" is if you retired from a governmental job collecting a pension then would be hired back to that same or similar job while still collecting the pension. States typically have strict rules on this. This is NOT the case here. By that "logic," NO public employee in any state or federal employee should have both a pension and Social Security. By that "logic," NO private employee should collect both a pension and Social Security.

The Reagan administration decided to penalize people who were working in jobs that didn't pay into Social Security but actually earned a benefit in covered employment. That was the "windfall elimination provision." It was always bullshit. The Reagan administration thought this was a good wedge issue to pit people without pensions against those who did.

60 MInutes back in the early 1980s did a hatchet job on this issue, and that helped put this rotten provision into law.

[RandomNumbers]

30. Thanks for that background

Still, I think "it must be nice" to get both pension and SS. And the miscreants who will soon be in charge, seem likely to gut as much as they can gut from the SS that those on the lowest rungs get.

It's not that I begrudge people who've worked hard getting a decent retirement from that. It's that I wish the attention were going to those who needed it most; and I fear instead that those worse off will indeed get the attention, and that it will be to make them even MORE worse off. But hey, it's what a majority of voters in the swing states (what's that about 8 states?) voted for, so hooray for Democracy. Sigh. (You would be right in thinking I did not take my happy pills today)

[valleyrogue]

31. This was truly bipartisan legislation.

Many states affected by the offsets were in red states like Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. Many supporters of the legislation were Republicans who LISTENED to their constituents.

Not Ted Cruz or Thune or McConnell in the Senate, but many of them did.

Nobody is going to "gut" Social Security and think they would ever get away with it.

[valleyrogue]

24. Completely untrue.

You could have always taken a job in the public sector. That was your choice. I PAID into SS for 41 years and counting, yet because I had a grand total of 5.04 years in service credit in Nevada public employment getting a piddling $341 and did not get 30 years of "substantial earnings," I got SCREWED out of $120 a month out of my SS that I earned. The big stink is if a person worked 30 years in "substantial earnings," which always went up, then the WEP would not apply. 30 years is completely arbitrary and based on the outdated notion people worked at one employer their entire working career before retiring. For many of us, that was not true and continues not to be true. I had many low years. I currently work a nine-month (full time) classified position in school district employment in Oregon, but my earnings fell just short of reaching the "substantial earnings" threshold. I am almost 70 years old and can't work forever. WEP was completely unfair to people like me who were trying to make up for the low earning years.

[madville]

47. It was theft

Glad it is being made right now.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

26. You ARE saying that anyone who paid into SS shouldn't get the benefits they earned, although you probably don't mean to.

Nobody is getting SS benefits they didn't pay for. What the WEP does is reduce your EARNED SS benefits (in my case by 40%), because you earned a different government pension as well. It was sold as a way to address the unsightly possibilty that someone might retire rich on government pension + SS, but it affects ANYONE who EARNED both kinds of pensions, regardless of how little they get. My current SS benefit is $647 / month, Although I EARNED a benefit 40% higher.

[valleyrogue]

27. The thing is most of those who make the "big pensions" wouldn't qualify for SS in the first place.

If they have 30, 35, or 40 years in, they are not going to be able to get the 40 quarters to become eligible for SS benefits.

The WEP directly impacted people like me who went into non-covered employment in midlife, but didn't get "outrageous" pensions because they had less service credit. I was only in non-covered employment a total of 5.04 years, with about 1 1/2 years of it also working for a private school fulltime paying into SS. I was still cheated out of about $120 a month SS.

[leftstreet]

23. Does this pave the way to drop public employee pension plans?

[valleyrogue]

25. No. n/t

[leftstreet]

28. Good. Because anything our overlords label a "Fairness" Act....

[valleyrogue]

29. It IS a "Fairness Act." This was bipartisan legislation of the best sort.

A lot of people who earned both an uncovered pension AND Social Security benefits were cheated out of those full SS benefits they EARNED. It IS a matter of fairness.

[leftstreet]

32. Right, got it

And yes it's only fair.

But reading the articles about it, the GOPers are already making stmts OH we can't afford this! And how this will stress the already underfunded SS staff etc.

[valleyrogue]

33. Only 20 GOP senators voted against repeal.

Only 75 Republicans in the House voted against repeal. The rest LISTENED to their constituents. This took many years of lobbying to get to this point. Usually one person obstructed, whether it was Orrin Hatch or somebody on the House Ways and Means Committee.

The "Social Security will be insolvent" mantra has always been a right-wing lie from the early 1980s, peddled by Koch-financed "libertarian" organizations like the Cato Institute. It was always about ideology with these crackpots. They wanted to create resentment and generational warfare while at the same time the REAL motive was the billionaires and businesses not wanting to pay their share of FICA taxes. Furthermore, no federal program can "go broke" since the federal government prints the money. Any bookkeeping "shortfall" can easily be remedied by paying it out of the general fund. This is why there has never been any big push to "fix" Social Security in recent decades. There is no need to.

[DianneD]

48. Question... Is President Biden vetoing this bill??? ...Still not signed yet

[mercuryblues]

49. if Biden doesn't sign a bill he supported

I would be surprised.

It won't become a zombie.

[Brother Buzz]

51. Methinks he will announce signing the bill between the holidays for greater exposure

It’s a nonpartisan win win, Baby!

[Brother Buzz]

53. That too, and see deserves the photo op considering she has...

Championed it from the get-go.

[Lulu KC]

54. You will see a headline when he does

If he said he would, he will. We can count on him.