• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should retired government workers get SS

should you get gov retirement and SS

  • yes you deserve both

    Votes: 28 80.0%
  • No, get only your cushy gov retirement.

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • Total voters
    35
Congresspersons are BY FAR the most egregiously underpaid executives in America. The salaries of federal judges are also an abomination and should at least be doubled if we are to have any hope of continuing to attract competent much less exceptional candidates to these positions. People want to drive a Cadillac and pay for a Yugo. That never works out well.
Food for thought.
Hard to think of a Congressman as being an executive....
Our chief executive is at 4 to 6 hundred thousand...with un-matchable benefits....The Ford CEO is at perhaps ten times that.
Something is out of balance and fairness here...
 
You describe it as "insurance," yet also claim it works like an individual retirement account. I therefore treat this with the all the seriousness it deserves.
There is no law against being a fool. SS is meanwhile insurance, and the hazard insured against is the once-common risk of outliving one's capacity to earn a living. That point may come at different times in different people's lives, depending on one's physical condition and the type of work one engages in. Thus, some may need to take early-retirement at reduced benefits as early as age 62, some may take full-retirement with full benefits at age 66, some may take delayed-retirement with enhanced benefits as late as age 70, and some may wait even longer than that. And we mustn't foregt that roughly the equivalent of a $400K commercial life insurance policy and a $350K commercial disability insurance policy are thrown into the mix for all covered workers at no extra charge.

I understand you need to pick fights just to pick fights, which is why I tend to ignore anything you say, but if you're going to troll, you could at least not contradict the hell out yourself in the process. I didn't think it could actually happen, but you've managed to lower my regard for you even more. So, go tell it to someone who cares.
Everyone should care about being misled and lied to by political hacks. It seems that some seek that sort of thing out instead.
 
If they paid into it then they deserve to get out of it. If you want to stop them from getting SS benefits, stop taking money out of their checks for it.
 
So when a person's contributions go to pay for someone else's withdrawl, and the workforce grows and more contributions are made to support those who came before them, what would YOU call it?
That's easy. Social Security is the most popular and successful social insurance program in the history of the world. Three generations of Americans have already been served and the system is sitting on a reserve of better than $2.7 trillion that will serve as a buffer in serving the next generation and quite probably one or two or more after that.

You don't seem to understand that ALL insurance programs operate as SS does, and that what characterizes Ponzi schemes is lack of access to a source of income. That's pretty basic stuff to be trying to get along without.
 
TAnd we mustn't foregt that roughly the equivalent of a $400K commercial life insurance policy and a $350K commercial disability insurance policy are thrown into the mix for all covered workers at no extra charge.

Second time asking for a link for your claims.
 
The difference is tax payers are paying your plush retirement fund if you retire from gov.
Taxpayers are paying for the far cushier severance and retirement packages and bonuses of even mid-level coprorate executives. We just call them consumers when they do that. Same people, though. Including you.
 
Taxpayers are paying for the far cushier severance and retirement packages and bonuses of even mid-level coprorate executives. We just call them consumers when they do that. Same people, though. Including you.

Consumers have choice. Taxpayers do not. Benefit packages, severance, bonuses and salaries are limited by profits in the private sector. In the public sector, there's this bottomless well called "taxes" to draw from.
 
That's easy. Social Security is the most popular and successful social insurance program in the history of the world. Three generations of Americans have already been served and the system is sitting on a reserve of better than $2.7 trillion that will serve as a buffer in serving the next generation and quite probably one or two or more after that.

You don't seem to understand that ALL insurance programs operate as SS does, and that what characterizes Ponzi schemes is lack of access to a source of income. That's pretty basic stuff to be trying to get along without.

I didn't call it a Ponzi scheme. It's a pyramid scheme.

So if the working population is reduced, such as it is now, there are fewer people funding that pyramid, but the payouts continue to go up. What happens when it inverts? It crashes......
 
First off they don't work as hard as those in private industry.
Actually, a big eye-opener for those who leave federal service for the pirvate sector is what a hapless, sorry-ass mess of an operation is actually going on in so many places out there. Infighting, backstabbing, silos, bottlenecks, morons, turf wars, nepotism, blatant discrimination, wanton wastes of time, money and resources -- it's all enough to drive a lot of folks straight back into the government again.

Secondly they were overpaid for 25 years or more and had great benefits.
Do you know why Goldman Sachs pays its people so well at such an early age? It's because they view themselevs as a high-end graduate school, and they want their people to be able to AFFORD to take a a few years off and go do a government job for a while.

Last but not least 70% of your pay when you retire for the rest of your life is better than any private pension I have heard of and us tax payers are already on the hook for that, giving them SS too is salt in my open wound.
Poor baby. The costs of FERS retirees are all paid for out of employer-employee contributions. Just as in the private sector. The costs of CSRS retirees are not fully covered. This is because prior to the creation of FERS, agencies were not required to (and didn't) make contrbutions to the system. Benefits were all paid for out of accrued employee contributions. The laws that created FERS changed that and agencies now do have to make contributions, but the hole left by their roughly 65-year absence plus interest thereon means that some general revenues are used to suipport CSRS benefits. Effectively, the last CSRS employees would have been hired by 1980, so the last of them will be out the door soon enough.
 
I just have to say I am very disappointed in the poll results thus far, I am a minority of one. It ain't easy bein me.:lol:
Looks like you've picked up a sympathy vote in the past couple of hours. Justice-voters seem to be giving you the old Romney-Ryan treatment.
 
anyone who pays into the system should be able to collect. however, we should raise the contribution ceiling, and it should continue to rise with inflation.
 
anyone who pays into the system should be able to collect. however, we should raise the contribution ceiling, and it should continue to rise with inflation.

Raise the ceiling how? By requiring everybody to contribute more, or let people elect to do so?
 
My brother in law just retired from a cushy gov job where he made 90K per year and openly bragged about how he spent most of the day shooting the breeze with other gov workers or reading books. He is now getting 70% of his pay and social security. It seems to me he is double dipping, getting a very generous retirement plan and SS. IMO if you are getting a tax payer funded retirement you are getting enough and should not get SS too.

So - how much one was paid overall should affect how much social security they receive? Or retirement benefits, etc.

But - I'm doubting those numbers . . . in part because he might be full of ****.
 
Raise the ceiling how? By requiring everybody to contribute more, or let people elect to do so?

by increasing the contribution limit. as i understand it (as of 2012,) a person making $106,800 per year will pay a maximum of $4,485.60. a theoretical person making a billion a year will also pay $4,485.60.

Social Security Contribution Limits – 2011 & 2012

in researching this, i found that the contribution level does rise slightly each year, so it is possible that it is already tied to inflation. i'm not sure.
 
Having owned my own business with up to six employees for 20 years, I can assure you my knowledge is first-hand. Of course it depends on what the "defined benefit" is -- if it's 1% of pay, then it's quite obviously not a generous plan. That, however, is NOT the case in the public sector -- which is pretty much the only place Defined Benefit Plans exist.
Thank you for conceding the point. And I guess you would agree then that the oligarchs have indeed succeeded in raping the unorganized and thus defenseless workers of the private sector, saddling them with all of the risks of defined-contribution plans, plans that depend critically on the unlikely event of Joe Schmoe somehow turning into an investment wizard, while of course divesting themselves of any present or future obligation to employees other than to sit back and watch them sink or swim on their own, the suckers.
 

You are kidding me, right?

The Federal Salary Council’s deliberations and recommendations have had an important and constructive influence on the findings and recommendations of the Pay Agent. The Council’s
recommendations appear in Appendix I. The members of the Federal Salary Council are

The Federal Salary Council is made up of seven people -- five of which are the heads of Federal unions. Pulleeze.

Thank you for conceding the point. And I guess you would agree then that the oligarchs have indeed succeeded in raping the unorganized and thus defenseless workers of the private sector, saddling them with all of the risks of defined-contribution plans, plans that depend critically on the unlikely event of Joe Schmoe somehow turning into an investment wizard, while of course divesting themselves of any present or future obligation to employees other than to sit back and watch them sink or swim on their own, the suckers.

I concede nothing.
 
Having owned my own business with up to six employees for 20 years, I can assure you my knowledge is first-hand. Of course it depends on what the "defined benefit" is -- if it's 1% of pay, then it's quite obviously not a generous plan. That, however, is NOT the case in the public sector -- which is pretty much the only place Defined Benefit Plans exist.

Very true. Defined benefit plans used to be the norm, but inflation eventually made them worthless: my office manager's father retired in from his state job in 1942 at 25% of his salary; by 1970, that $40/month didn't go very far. After a couple of well published bankruptcies in the early seventies (where retirees lost their only income), Congress passed the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) which required companies to plan ahead and save the money to meet their future obligations; that's when private companies generally dropped the defined benefit plans and went to defined contribution plans. It was a painful transition - from the beginning of retirement plans (ca 1815) until 1970, approximately 3% of retirees lost their retirement to company bankruptcy; after ERISA, the number jumped to 15%, but the defined contribution plans are much more stable.

CF is correct that the Ponzi scheme of SS has lasted this long because of a reliable income stream extorted from the American taxpayer, but as the ratio of workers to retirees continues to drop we will eventually work through the bubble of income contributed by the baby boomers over the last half century. Then we can expect another painful transition as the goose no longer produces enough golden eggs.

Creative accounting has protected the government retirement plans for many years, but we are seeing the beginning of a tidal wave of local government bankruptcies which should, when realistically faced, end the defined benefit plans even in government.
 
My congressman is OVER paid. Egregiously so. Federal judges I think are fairly or generouly compensated.

Agreed. In spades. :peace
 
My congressman is OVER paid. Egregiously so. Federal judges I think are fairly or generouly compensated.
Rank and file House members are paid $174,000 per year. An Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is paid $213,900 per year, Circuit Court judges are paid $184,500 per year, and District Court judges make $174,000 per year. If you think that's overpaid fro the job, you must live somewhere in the outer suburbs of Past-the-Old-Stump.
 
My brother in law just retired from a cushy gov job where he made 90K per year and openly bragged about how he spent most of the day shooting the breeze with other gov workers or reading books. He is now getting 70% of his pay and social security. It seems to me he is double dipping, getting a very generous retirement plan and SS. IMO if you are getting a tax payer funded retirement you are getting enough and should not get SS too.

What was his job and where do I apply?

I voted yes because most government workers don't get anywhere near the cushy experience your brother in-law did. Plus, anyone who pays into SS all those years should be eligible to collect it upon retirement.
 
First off they don't work as hard as those in private industry. Secondly they were overpaid for 25 years or more and had great benefits. Last but not least 70% of your pay when you retire for the rest of your life is better than any private pension I have heard of and us tax payers are already on the hook for that, giving them SS too is salt in my open wound.
My experience in the private sector is that some workers are getting richly rewarded for poor quality and quantity of work. Here is an example: To enter, cross the threshold, into a very high level engineering position where I worked you were required, among other things, to write a paper on leading edge engineering you were working on. It was best if the paper described technical stuff that no one else was aware of. One of my tasks was to review some of these papers that were in my area of expertise. One paper was beyond what I thought an applicant was capable of. With some research I found that it had been plagiarized from two other papers in a related field. I documented my findings. The result was that I was in trouble because he was a member of the correct church in the section he worked in. He was allowed to ‘edit’ the paper and the paper was accepted. I did a bit of research and found that in general he was not capable of doing the job he was being paid for, forget the promotion he got. My experience in the public sector (e.g. At the S.S. offices which we have been to many times because of relatives.) has been that the people we get assistance from there are very busy. When our issues are complex we ask for the ‘expert’ and actually get one after a wait. There are queues because they are overloaded, not because they are taking extended breaks. When some research has to be done and we need to come back days later we are remembered and answers and choices are presented.
btw, where were you wounded?
 
Last edited:
Food for thought. Hard to think of a Congressman as being an executive....
Really? They run a lot of the show.

Our chief executive is at 4 to 6 hundred thousand...with un-matchable benefits....The Ford CEO is at perhaps ten times that. Something is out of balance and fairness here...
Obama earns an annual $400K plus a $50K expense account for business related costs. The 100th highest paid private sector CEO would make about 40 times that. Something is definitely out of whack here.
 
Taxpayers are paying for the far cushier severance and retirement packages and bonuses of even mid-level coprorate executives. We just call them consumers when they do that. Same people, though. Including you.

You don't have to buy things, you have a choice. taxes are paid or you go to jail, big difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom