• 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

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
You pay into social security....so after retirement you should get that money you paid into it...back...that is the entire plan of social security.
 
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.

I voted yes.

My mom gets civil service & SS totaling 1550 per month.

She paid into both therefore deserves both.

In brother in laws case he was obviously overpaid!:2razz:

All joking aside I would be in favor of rolling SS into the civil service ie

you paid in 5,000 before going into govt-then thats into your pension

5,000 divided by years or whatever. That way you're not cheated but

the $20.00 added to civil service won"t break the bank.
 
You pay into social security....so after retirement you should get that money you paid into it...back...that is the entire plan of social security.

Small correction to that.... you don't get back just what you paid into it. So the taxpayer is actually paying twice - the continued salary or portion there of AND social security.
 
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.

Was he working for state, local or federal government?

As a military retiree, I don't get to double dip. When I reach SS age, my retirement gets reduced by the amount that SS pays. So technically, I get SS, but not really.

No matter how much you get paid in other retirement, you should get your SS. You spent a lifetime paying it, you should get it.
 
You pay into social security....so after retirement you should get that money you paid into it...back...that is the entire plan of social security.

If the presumption is that you get out of SS because you pay into it, why then should you get SS if you pay nothing into it?
 
Small correction to that.... you don't get back just what you paid into it. So the taxpayer is actually paying twice - the continued salary or portion there of AND social security.

You would think we could fix that little discrepancy...you should only get back what you pay into it.
 
If the presumption is that you get out of SS because you pay into it, why then should you get SS if you pay nothing into it?

You shouldn't. You get back what you paid into it...that's it. It would ensure that Social Security wasn't an entitlement.
 
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.

If you paid into both then yes you should get both. If you didn't pay into social security then you shouldn't get it. Don't want people to collect SS then don't take it from them at all.
 
I think if you are getting 70% of your pay for the rest of your life SS should be null and void. You are already getting more than your fair share of tax payer dollars for a job you were overpaid for in the first place.
 
If the presumption is that you get out of SS because you pay into it, why then should you get SS if you pay nothing into it?

Because SS was initially set up as a Ponzi scheme and has never been changed. Reagan changed the retirement rules, and federal civil service employees hired after the early eighties do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS); they participate in the SS Ponzi scheme.

We used to have triple dippers who worked the system back in the mid-20th century. In the nineties I had a neighbor who was financial trustee for a 95 year old triple dipper (military, federal civil service, SS) whose nursing home cost $5,000/month, and he was still adding to his bank account. But you can't do that any more (except maybe in California) and those who have it are dying off.
 
Because SS was initially set up as a Ponzi scheme and has never been changed. Reagan changed the retirement rules, and federal civil service employees hired after the early eighties do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS); they participate in the SS Ponzi scheme.

We used to have triple dippers who worked the system back in the mid-20th century. In the nineties I had a neighbor who was financial trustee for a 95 year old triple dipper (military, federal civil service, SS) whose nursing home cost $5,000/month, and he was still adding to his bank account. But you can't do that any more (except maybe in California) and those who have it are dying off.

I agree with you. I was responding to the statement(s) that government workers should get it SS if they paid into it. The reverse of that argument is that if you don't pay in, you get nothing back. Otherwise it is just a welfare program paid for by a tax.

But you are right. The first recipient had never paid a dime into the system. Roosevelt believed that people would become willing participants if they had an expectation that they would get back the investment at a future date. Ponzi would have been proud.
 
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.

He's probably getting Social Security based on employment at another job. As a Federal employee, he doesn't pay into Social Security. Before he was a Federal employee, if he had a job, he was--and thus would be entitled to something based upon that employment history.

IMO, all Federal/State employees should have 401K's. Not those overly-generous defined benefit plans they now enjoy. Maybe someday...
 
As a military retiree, I don't get to double dip. When I reach SS age, my retirement gets reduced by the amount that SS pays

I don't think that is true. I can't find anywhere that states either is offset by the other.
 
He's probably getting Social Security based on employment at another job. As a Federal employee, he doesn't pay into Social Security.
Federal employees have paid into SS for a couple of decades now.

IMO, all Federal/State employees should have 401K's. Not those overly-generous defined benefit plans they now enjoy. Maybe someday...
They do. Like I said, the old system went away many years ago and there has long been a contribution 501k type system.
 
Federal employees have paid into SS for a couple of decades now.

They do. Like I said, the old system went away many years ago and there has long been a contribution 501k type system.

If you are correct that they pay into social security, then they get two pensions.

Congressmen:

The pension amount is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. For example, a member of Congress who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year. In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000.[3]

Congressional pension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You pay into social security....so after retirement you should get that money you paid into it...back...that is the entire plan of social security.

No, actually, you describe what everyone seems to think is the "plan" of Social Security, but it isn't. When you pay, you're explicitly paying for other people, not stocking up for yourself.
 
So, I am in the majority again.
My father in law "doubled dipped", but he had to work a second job to earn SS benefits. A man should be given credit for wise financial planning.
And, the truth.....he was never wealthy with his federal employment, but never messed a meal either..
IMO, the problem is "private sector" employment which has no respect for the working man...thus, unions are necessary..
 
No, actually, you describe what everyone seems to think is the "plan" of Social Security, but it isn't. When you pay, you're explicitly paying for other people, not stocking up for yourself.

True, do you think that there is anything wrong with this ?

And the 401k plans were for the selfish, me for one...
I think that its a great system....pension, FICA, 401k, and the VA....
It greatly benefits a man to do his service for his nation...
 
I think if you are getting 70% of your pay for the rest of your life SS should be null and void. You are already getting more than your fair share of tax payer dollars for a job you were overpaid for in the first place.
A federal worker would need to have had 37 years of service to receive a pension equal to 70% of the average of his highest three years of salary, and that option applies only to some workers who were hired (or elected) prior to 1983. That 37 years doesn't leave a whole lot of time to be out accruing the additional 40 quarters of work covered by Social Security that are needed in order to qualify for an SS pension, and those few who might manage it are hit by stiff offset penalties that make sure they don't actually receive the benefits they have paid for.

On average, federal workers are paid at rates that are about 20% below what they would earn in the private sector for comparable work. They do receive benefits that may appear generous, especially as the private sector continues to allow and even supports the oligarchy's stripping away of what were once even cushier benefits. So, no more gold watch, but thank god you don't have to pay union dues or have anyone to turn to when management screws you over.
 
This is particularly true for judges and politicians.
I'd go for unpaid politicians.....but this is going too far the other way...I do know that several generations ago, the Maine state congressmen were not paid for their "service".
I think if you are getting 70% of your pay for the rest of your life SS should be null and void. You are already getting more than your fair share of tax payer dollars for a job you were overpaid for in the first place.
IMO, they are overpaid by a factor of 2X.....That the law allows them to vote on their compensation for what little they do...
Talk about the need of reform.....
 
Last edited:
Because SS was initially set up as a Ponzi scheme and has never been changed.
A nice example of laughable garbage. Ponzi schemes fail because they lack access to a reliable income stream. If Charles Ponzi had actually beeen able to make money out of international postal-coupon arbitrage, his company might still be around today. But he couldn't, so it failed in six months instead. Social Security has been around for 75 years and will be for at least that long again. This is because it is plugged into perhaps the laregst and most reliable income stream in world history -- the wages of US workers. Social Security will continue to have income for as long as American workers do.
 
Back
Top Bottom