• 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
Cardinal Fang said:
Well, the ones without a COLA. Didn't used to matter so much, but the oil price shocks of the early 1970's put inflation risk on the map. That why a COLA was added to SS. Still, inflation risk is another one that employers want to dump off onto employees if they haven't done so already.
Click to expand...

Inflation risk is a function of government printing too much money. Since the employer entity has no vote, and the employees have all the votes, why should it be the employer's responsibility to guarantee the purchasing power of the employee's retirement? All retirement funds should be defined contribution, and it is the responsibility of the individual to elect representatives who will not destroy the value of their savings.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Hmmm. How did HIS career work out? Otherwise what I'm hearing here is some more good old DMV and fish stories.
Click to expand...

Retired as a GM-13 and moved on to a more profitable career in the private sector. 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. In government, competence is not a prerequisite for success.
 
mike2810 said:
Guess I had a different experience. In my career I saw or was involved in the removal of five employees. Reason for dismissal ranged from misuse of govt credit card, misuse of govt. property, taking a govt. vehicle on an unauthorized trip (personal trip for days), unable to pass fitness standards.

It got harder as time went on to fire someone. The reason imo was the trend in govt towards political correctness , accepting the "its not my fault" mentality, and "you owe me" attitude.
Click to expand...

Agreed that malfeasance makes it easier to fire someone; we had one who got fired for coming in on weekends and charging overtime for downloading porn on a government computer. But I stand by my assertion that it is extremely difficult to fire someone for mere incompetence.
 
Diogenes said:
Agreed that malfeasance makes it easier to fire someone; we had one who got fired for coming in on weekends and charging overtime for downloading porn on a government computer. But I stand by my assertion that it is extremely difficult to fire someone for mere incompetence.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nobody should get SS that doesn't need it.
 
DA60 said:
Nobody should get SS that doesn't need it.
Click to expand...

Nobody should pay into SS and not get it. :)

It is a retirement/disability program not a welfare or income redistribution program.
 
GottaGo said:
So you have no qualms about receiving more money than you contributed, based on someone else working.

Gotcha! :wink:
Click to expand...

Nope, no trouble at all

And if I should ever be diagnosed with a medical condition that is costly to treat, I will be equally OK with receiving more medical treatment than my premium dollars paid for.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

With CSR nothing is paid into SS and nothing can be taken out.

With FERS government workers pay into SS and they get to draw it. They also pay into FERS. And they don't have the choice of not paying into either.

And he doesn't make 70% of his salary. He's lying. I have posted how you figure it from the OPM website before. Go there and figure it. What he is telling you is just not true.

I, myself, have worked off 4 pensions. And come May I intend to draw every one of them.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...


Did he contribute to both?
if so he should get both.
 
sangha said:
Nope, no trouble at all

And if I should ever be diagnosed with a medical condition that is costly to treat, I will be equally OK with receiving more medical treatment than my premium dollars paid for.
Click to expand...

Glad to know that too. Responsibility for one's self apparently doesn't cross your threashold.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nobody should pay into SS and not get it. :)

It is a retirement/disability program not a welfare or income redistribution program.
Click to expand...

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.


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).
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
More like understanding how insurance works not crossing yours
Click to expand...

:2rofll:

Umm, yeah. Deal with it every day.

So, are you prepared to fund the deductible and your 80% coinsurance to your OOP limit if this should catastrophic illness should occur?
 
DA60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not nearly as much as requiring ALL gov't retirees to wait until SS benefit age to get their retirement benefits.
 
Maenad said:
And there are a lot of those.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what your point is:

* Social Security pays benefits to the families of workers who die and leave behind spouses, children under the age of 20, and sometimes other relations such as parents and ex-spouses (more details in footnote).[80]

* Each dependent receives about 75% to 100% of the deceased worker's basic Social Security benefit. However, as per the Social Security Administration, "there is a limit to the amount of money that can be paid each month to a family. The limit varies, but is generally equal to about 150 to 180 percent of your benefit rate.
Click to expand...


Social Security - Just Facts
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Fair Share" is an idiotic, completely arbitrary notion that is no better used here then it is when people suggest taxes need to be increased on certain people.

MaggieD said:
As a Federal employee, he doesn't pay into Social Security.
Click to expand...

This is just entirely, unquestionably untrue when presented as just a "federal employee". Some, LONG TIME employees under an old and outdated retirement program didn't require it. Any individuals hired in the past few decades absolutely do pay SS. I can tell you first hand as someone whose been paying Social Security for the past 5+ years while in a government job.

As to the question, put across in an INCREDIBLY dishonest way by presenting a situation that is exceedingly rare in the grand scale of things (a retired government employee gaining 70% of their high 3 income) as some kind of norm....yes, retired government workers should get Social Security. However, I'd be completely in favor of significant overhaul to the pension program if not an outright removal of it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am not sure what your point is:

Social Security - Just Facts
Click to expand...

Not sure what that wall of stats is supposed to be saying. I personally know several people who paid in for years and died withot any beneficiaries. Had Vanderbilt not extended my life another few years, I would have as well because my husband is dead and my children are grown. He never drew. But our children got his benefits until they were 18. I went to school and worked. Could have stayed home, I guess, but I felt it was important to get myself into a profession before I was in my 50s.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not nearly as much as requiring ALL gov't retirees to wait until SS benefit age to get their retirement benefits.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree with the whole SS system.

It was designed for people that were too financially useless to save up for retirement.

Now, imo, it's basically a giant, governmental, bureaucratic mess that politician's love because it gives them more power/control over the masses.


I say abolish it when everyone presently over 35-40 dies.

And if seniors need help after that, they can go to government run emergency shelters (instead of welfare/SS) or appeal to family/charities.


They have almost half a century to save up for retirement.

If that is not enough...too bad.

(the above does not apply to those with pre-65 physical/mental disabilities)


It's time healthy Americans grew spines and took responsibility for their own lives...and retirements.
 
Last edited:
Maenad said:
Not sure what that wall of stats is supposed to be saying. I personally know several people who paid in for years and died withot any beneficiaries. Had Vanderbilt not extended my life another few years, I would have as well because my husband is dead and my children are grown. He never drew. But our children got his benefits until they were 18. I went to school and worked. Could have stayed home, I guess, but I felt it was important to get myself into a profession before I was in my 50s.
Click to expand...

That is true of many insurance situations, not all will ever get back as much as they pay in.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

He is not getting that. FERS does not pay that much. You get 1% of the average of your your high three salary years times the number of years you have worked. If you have worked over 20 years, I believe it is 1.5%. And that does not add up to 70% of $90,000 even if you worked 30 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom