• 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
So let me pose this question in a different way. SS is going broke and adjustments will have to be made. Should their be an across the board equal cut in benefits or should those who get a luxurious gov pension and SS get a bigger benefit cut than those of us who depend exclusively on SS?

Another thing to remember is these pensions are so ridiculous because of gov unions. This is a perfect example of how they are making America go broke. SS AND a gov union pension and most of you are OK with it. No wonder I live on a mountain side with no freakin neighbors! No wonder I'm stocking up on guns ammo and food, you guys are NUTS :lol:
 
Last edited:
And one more thing while I'm on a roll here. There are more gov workers being overpaid and getting gold plated benefits and retirement packages every day. This is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever and when it collapses it will make the housing collapse look like child's play. It will destroy our economy and all you retired or soon to be retired gov employees laughing all the way to the bank won't have much to laugh about when your entire retirement check plus your SS check won't buy a loaf of bread. Now I'm off to Wal Mart to buy more ammo that I will need to defend my garden from you dummy's when you can't buy food with the dollars you made worthless.
 
Well, I disagree with the whole SS system. It was designed for people that were too financially useless to save up for retirement.
No, it was designed as one brick in a wall attempting to turn back a popular tide sweeping toward socialism and quite possibly communism as the result of the latest and most devastating global collapse of capitalism. It sought to fund a modest income floor for covered workers beneath which none could fall no matter how badly things turned out for them.

Now, imo, it's basically a giant, governmental, bureaucratic mess that politician's love because it gives them more power/control over the masses.
It's actually a highly professional and smoothly run operation that gets tens of millions of monthly payments to retired and disabled beneficiaries and to their dependents and survivors. All at low administrative cost.
 
So let me pose this question in a different way. SS is going broke...
No, it isn't. The only question is whether the present system can pay 100% of scheduled benefits for at least 75 years. If you use really, really pessimistic assumptions that have always proved wrong in the past, you can create a scenario where 100% of scheduled benefits can be paid for only about 20 years and then 75% of benefits for all years after that. People who use words like "broke" or "bankrupt" with regard to Social Secuirty don't understand what SS is or how it works.

...and adjustments will have to be made.
Adjustments are an OPTION. If those pessimistic assumptions turn out to be only a little too pessimistic, the Trust Fund will in fact never run out of funds, and 100% of scheduled benefits will always be paid even if we do nothing.

Should their be an across the board equal cut in benefits or should those who get a luxurious gov pension and SS get a bigger benefit cut than those of us who depend exclusively on SS?
There is already a clawback based on receiving SS plus a federal pension. Other pensions do not result in any such thing, but if your married-filing-jointly income from all sources exceeds $32,000, increasingly large parts of your SS benefits become subject to income tax.

Another thing to remember is these pensions are so ridiculous because of gov unions.
LOL! Such as they are, federal unions cannot bargain over wages or benefits. Those are all set out in legislation passed by Congress.
 
Not jealous, resentful is a better word. I resent that I paid for him to do virtually nothing for 25 years and now I will pay for his cushy gov retirement package. This kind of crap is breaking this country.

Its not SS but over taxation and out of hand spending on failed programs.......
 
So let me pose this question in a different way. SS is going broke and adjustments will have to be made. Should their be an across the board equal cut in benefits or should those who get a luxurious gov pension and SS get a bigger benefit cut than those of us who depend exclusively on SS?

No, they're two entirely separate issues no matter how many times you try to combine them in your dishonest presentations. A restructuring or removal of government pensions is a option. Looking at SS on a basis of an individuals other forms of retirement income...be it from the government, from their own saving, or from a private business...could be reasonable. However, simply attempting to tie it singularly to government employees retirement is asinine.

It will destroy our economy and all you retired or soon to be retired gov employees laughing all the way to the bank won't have much to laugh about when your entire retirement check plus your SS check won't buy a loaf of bread.

Actually, I'm not laughing all the way to the bank because of my retirement pension, nor will I be stumbling if the government can no longer fund them. Unlike people who just want to whine about others utilizing gross exaggerations as if they're the norm, I actually give a damn about the notion of Personal Responsibility. Beyond my government pension, I'm also heavily investing into my Thrift Savings Program (government equivalent of a 401K) as well as investing along with my wife in a private IRA complete separate from either of our jobs. Not out of our 30's yet, we've already put down a plan for a reasonable 20 years of retirement without taking Social Security or my government pension into account. IF those things that we'll be paying into for decades actually still exist in some form by the time I retire, then that'll be bonus on top. But I worry about myself and making sure my family and I will be okay rather than jealously worrying about exaggerated situations others may have.
 
The thing that most people don't understand is that most government workers pay into their pension program. It is not a freebie given to them. As for SS....you still have to meet the minimum quarters of work over and above your government service in order to be eligible for SS and the amount you receive is reduced due to the pension you receive.
 
Inflation risk is a function of government printing too much money.
LOL! Space cadet economics at work. Price levels move independently of the money supply. Inflation risk is a perceived probability that price levels will rise in the future. Nobody votes on it. It's a standard market risk that the supposed "risk-takers" have tired of and want to dump off on you instead. Sounds like you are ready to be a good little draft-animal and have a few more bones in your back broken in order to help out those who are already quite wealthy.
 
So let me pose this question in a different way. SS is going broke and adjustments will have to be made. Should their be an across the board equal cut in benefits or should those who get a luxurious gov pension and SS get a bigger benefit cut than those of us who depend exclusively on SS?

Another thing to remember is these pensions are so ridiculous because of gov unions. This is a perfect example of how they are making America go broke. SS AND a gov union pension and most of you are OK with it. No wonder I live on a mountain side with no freakin neighbors! No wonder I'm stocking up on guns ammo and food, you guys are NUTS :lol:

Government workers have no choice but to pay into their pension plan, just like they have no choice but to pay into SS. They should not be denied their SS any more than someone who paid into the penson plan of GE or AT&T. And the pensions are not ridiculous. They are comparable to private sector plans as they should be. You clearly have a lump in your bed over people who have worked long enough and planned well enough to retire. Get over it and get a job.
 
Retired as a GM-13 and moved on to a more profitable career in the private sector.
Either "never do today what you can put off until tomorrow" was enthusiastically embraced in the private sector, or this guy wasn't quite the useless troll you tried to painty him as. Just plain BS either way.

His successor made GM-14 and is still employed there as the supervisor of a small turkey farm. The next guy was much better at political infighting and moved even further up the management ladder after turning the division over to another incompetent.
LOL! There was a lot of intrigue and infighting over the position of small turkey farm manager? That's not quite the headline federal job series, you know, and of course GM-13 and GM-14 were ranks under the PMRS system that was abolished by Congress in 1993.

In government, competence is not a prerequisite for success.
Not at DP either, it would seem.
 
I agree. It is a shame that some have poor work ethic. Those type of people should have to work on a farm or ranch. Maybe they would learn the meaning of a days pay for days work.
Unsuccessful work situations arise from a variety of sources. Management with a brain seeks to resolve such circumstances through things like training, reassignments, and counseling. Removal of an employee should be the last resort. There was obviously some potential identified that caused the guy or gal to get hired in the first place. Scrapping him or her is simply writing off the entire investment that has been made in this person when other steps might yield the sort of positive return that had originally been anticipated. Such an approach probably wouldn't play so well in shoot-em-up Cowboy World though.
 
So you have no qualms about receiving more money than you contributed, based on someone else working. Gotcha!
You are lacking in something called insight. Only putting money in a coffee can or stuffing it under a mattress returns the same amount that you deposited. Did you know that mortgage lenders receive back MORE than the amount that they lent to a homebuyer? Why don't you complain about that?
 
The thing that most people don't understand is that most government workers pay into their pension program. It is not a freebie given to them. As for SS....you still have to meet the minimum quarters of work over and above your government service in order to be eligible for SS and the amount you receive is reduced due to the pension you receive.

You pay into it, but seeing the amount it takes out first hand, I can't imagine that if you actally calculated it up that the amount you pay in is anywhere close to what you'd get out
 
I thought SS monthly payouts were reduced by pension payouts?

How pensions affect your Social Security benefit

Only if those pensions were supplied by exempting those earnings from SS or if they are recieved when you retire "early" taking SS before your specified SS "full benefit" age. SS is designed to supplement other retirement income, not to replace it.
 
You are lacking in something called insight. Only putting money in a coffee can or stuffing it under a mattress returns the same amount that you deposited. Did you know that mortgage lenders receive back MORE than the amount that they lent to a homebuyer? Why don't you complain about that?

Mortgage lenders are fronting money for the purchase of a product based on the ability to pay it back. For that, they receive funds (interest) to compensate for the use of those funds.

The amount one receives on SS which exceeds the amount they contributed far exceeds the amount of interest accumulated on that money. It is taken from the funds contributed people people who are still in the workforce.

Next?
 
I realize that is what it is. But that is not what I think it should be. It should be emergency funds for poor seniors...which would greatly cut down on it's overall costs.
You are describing the separate Supplemental Security Income program that assists the indigent elderly, blind, and otherwise disabled. It's a welfare program funded entirely from general revenues.

It's ridiculous that middle class people have to basically give money to the government for the latter to hold for a few decades - only to give much of it back (with horrible return rates).
Where to begin. That's not at all how it works, the only reason payroll taxes are a part of your gross income is so that you can afford to pay the tax, and real rates of return for average income workers and below are actually quite good. The wealthy don't do as well. In a few rare cases they can even end up with negative rates of return. Too bad for them. The princess sometimes has to put up with the pea.
 
Mortgage lenders are fronting money for the purchase of a product based on the ability to pay it back. For that, they receive funds (interest) to compensate for the use of those funds.

The amount one receives on SS which exceeds the amount they contributed far exceeds the amount of interest accumulated on that money. It is taken from the funds contributed people people who are still in the workforce.

Next?

Wrong. You ignore those that die without anyone collecting their "suvivor" benefits and many that do not collect as much as they paid in. Consider the real, inflation adjusted, value of $1 "contributed" to SS in 1970, it is worth (its buying power) about $0.17 if returned to you in 2013, yet you consider that $1 as still worth a full $1 after all of those years.
 
Only if those pensions were supplied by exempting those earnings from SS or if they are recieved when you retire "early" taking SS before your specified SS "full benefit" age.
No, the year in which one turns 62 is used in calculation of the "windfall" elimination, but it applies whenever one retires and continues until one dies, exhausts the other pension, or reaches 30 years of coverage under SS.

SS is designed to supplement other retirement income, not to replace it.
It was designed to provide an income floor that would be there no matter what else happened. Wealthy people may be able to amass other resources for retirement. Many not-wealthy people are not able to do so, and their numbers are now increasing.
 
Last edited:
You pay into it, but seeing the amount it takes out first hand, I can't imagine that if you actally calculated it up that the amount you pay in is anywhere close to what you'd get out

It depends.....basically on how long you live. My pension is based on the number of years I work and also at the age of retirement. The county knows that the longer I stay in my job, the lower by life expectation is so my pension increases dramatically once I hit 63. If you die in your 70's you probably won't get out what you paid in. If you die in your early 80's you probably will break even. If you are lucky enough to live into your mid-80's or beyond then you are correct.
 
Mortgage lenders are fronting money for the purchase of a product based on the ability to pay it back. For that, they receive funds (interest) to compensate for the use of those funds.
So you are able to understand the concept in that context.

The amount one receives on SS which exceeds the amount they contributed far exceeds the amount of interest accumulated on that money. It is taken from the funds contributed people people who are still in the workforce.
Your SSN is not linked to a personal account that earns any interest at all. You are way, way out in left field here. Meanwhile, ALL insurance works the way that SS does. Good drivers pay to repair the cars of those who talk on cellphones and drive into trees. Non-smokers pay to rebuild the burned down homes of those who smoked in bed. Workers pay to maintain a basic lifestyle for those foolish enough to have lived beyond their capacity to work effectively. In each of these cases, actuarial analysis reveals the levels of current premiums needed to pay current claims while also accumulating a padding of reserves against future claims. There is nothing unusual going on here. It's the standard insurance model.

I recommend that you undergo a few years of schooling. I'm not going to be able to do it all here.
 
Back
Top Bottom