• 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
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.


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.

Hey Mr. Angry?

I told you before - I am not wasting my time replying to your closed minded, nonsensical, anger-management-class-reject posts unless it is without the moderators whose rules you keep hiding behind.

It's either mono-a-mono, complete free speech or not at all.

Either spew your bile filled rants at me in the Penalty Box or in pm's or your posts will be ignored - though I twice asked you this before and you couldn't handle it then so I am quite sure you can't handle it this time either.

Typical.

Life is WAY too short for me to waste it on the likes of you.


Have a nice day.
 
So you are able to understand the concept in that context.

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.
You do not make contributions to insurance, you pay premiums, based on many different factors. SS is a flat percentage of income. Insurance is not. You may be taxed on portions of your SS, insurance is not a taxable source except in extenuating circumstances. Insurance is voluntary. SS is not.

I don't need any schooling you may attempt to provide.
 
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.

Employees are an investment. Period. They are employed for the purpose of making money. They are NOT rehabilitaion projects. A good displined invester will cut bait at the FIRST sign of an investment going sour. The idea is to preserve capitol from the folly of chasing bad investments. Attempting to rehabilitate an employee that is not working out is throwing good money after bad. Its simply a depletion of capitol that could otherwise be used to find and train another employee whose chances of working out to be a successful investment are superior. Investing in employees is the same as investing in most anything else, homework and planning are required to be successful, including planning for possible failure of the investment and how to address and adjust in that eventuality.
 
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?

Its the private sector, it does not mean that people wont be stupid, far from it. I deal with that type situation all the time. Its annoying but then I have benifited too. It works both ways. Its why I work to guard and make my reputation the best I can. So my reputation preceeds me, and opens doors that might remain closed in those kinds of situations.
 
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 government has nothing to do with creating inflation? You are entitled to your fantasy... :roll:
 
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.

He was simply advising me how things worked in government.

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.

He didn't want the turkey farm but, in a failure of Parkinson's Law, he was actually promoted above his level of competence and had to be reassigned. And this was in the eighties.

Not at DP either, it would seem.

On that point we agree, although we would probably differ on who best exemplifies the point.
 
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.

Really don't see that working out in that fashion...

Average life expectancy is 78 years old, and trending upwards.

I believe the government takes out a little under 0.8% per pay period it seems. For example, last year I had $390 taken out of my pay check for Retirement.

Let's say my pay the past 5 years has been the same, and let's say it never goes up. I can retire at 57, meaning my time in the government would be 32 years total. I would have put in $12,480 dollars over those 32 years.

In year one of retirement I would get the average of my high-3 (which, in this hypothetical, never got higher than what it is now) times my year in service times 1%. This would come out to roughly $15,680 for a year.

So after my first year in retirement, I would come out +$3,200. Every year after I'm now in the positive. If I live to the average life expectency I would end up getting a total of $329,280 over those 21 years. This would be be $316,800 more than I put in or put another way, more than 2600% of what I actually paid.

And that's assuming my salary never increases.

Lets say for the next 5 years my salary stays the same. Meaning for my first 10 years I'm paying in $390 a year. So by the end of year 10, I'd paid $3,900.

The next 10 years my salary goes up to $75,000. That would mean I paid $6,000 over that time span, with a total of $9,900 thus far.

The next 10 years my salary goes up to $100,000. That would mean I paid $8,000 over that time span, with a total of $17,900.

Finally, my last 2 years I go up to $125,000. That would be $2,000 over that two year period, bringing me to a final total of $19,900.

Now, I need to look at my high three average. So that would could out to be $100,000. So my yearly take home for pension this time would be $32,000. By year one, I'm already ahead by more than twelve thousand dollars. By the 21 year mark, I'm up more than $650K.

No, almost any way you do the math, the average government worker will get more back in their first year of pension then they paid in the entire span of time.
 
Nobody should get SS that doesn't need it.
So we were paying into a forced retirement plan, SS, and saving for retirement on our own. We saved and invested more, and at a higher percentage of our income, on our own. We did well. We are now helping other family members who also get SS checks with some money (a small portion of our SS checks) and other actions that we can afford to do. We insure that their property taxes are paid etc. And your plan is to take our SS away and give more to our family members that are having trouble manageing their money. So exactly how would you implement your paln that would add a lot of complexity to the pay out of SS to those that don't need it. Start with a definition of "don't need it".
 
Last edited:
So we were paying into a forced retirement plan, SS, and saving for retirement on our own. We saved and invested more, and at a higher percentage of our income, on our own. We did well. We are now helping other family members who also get SS checks with some money (a small portion of our SS checks) and other actions that we can afford to do. We insure that their property taxes are paid etc. And your plan is to take our SS away and give more to our family members that are having trouble manageing their money. So exactly how would you implement your paln that would add a lot of complexity to the pay out of SS to those that don't need it. Start with a definition of "don't need it".

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ernment-workers-get-ss-13.html#post1061553701
 
SS was never meant to be a sole source of income when you retire......It was meant to supplement any pension you might receive.....Sadly it has become a premier ponzi game that cannot survive in its present state.....
 
Really don't see that working out in that fashion...

Average life expectancy is 78 years old, and trending upwards.

I believe the government takes out a little under 0.8% per pay period it seems. For example, last year I had $390 taken out of my pay check for Retirement.

Let's say my pay the past 5 years has been the same, and let's say it never goes up. I can retire at 57, meaning my time in the government would be 32 years total. I would have put in $12,480 dollars over those 32 years.

In year one of retirement I would get the average of my high-3 (which, in this hypothetical, never got higher than what it is now) times my year in service times 1%. This would come out to roughly $15,680 for a year.

So after my first year in retirement, I would come out +$3,200. Every year after I'm now in the positive. If I live to the average life expectency I would end up getting a total of $329,280 over those 21 years. This would be be $316,800 more than I put in or put another way, more than 2600% of what I actually paid.

And that's assuming my salary never increases.

Lets say for the next 5 years my salary stays the same. Meaning for my first 10 years I'm paying in $390 a year. So by the end of year 10, I'd paid $3,900.

The next 10 years my salary goes up to $75,000. That would mean I paid $6,000 over that time span, with a total of $9,900 thus far.

The next 10 years my salary goes up to $100,000. That would mean I paid $8,000 over that time span, with a total of $17,900.

Finally, my last 2 years I go up to $125,000. That would be $2,000 over that two year period, bringing me to a final total of $19,900.

Now, I need to look at my high three average. So that would could out to be $100,000. So my yearly take home for pension this time would be $32,000. By year one, I'm already ahead by more than twelve thousand dollars. By the 21 year mark, I'm up more than $650K.

No, almost any way you do the math, the average government worker will get more back in their first year of pension then they paid in the entire span of time.

Your numbers are different than mine. We get 4% deducted every pay period and if I retire with 30 years in at 62 I will collect 48% of my salary.
 
I'm guessing you started before 1987 so you're on the now discontinued CSRS system.
 
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.

If you are a gov worker you don't have a job, you have welfare where you have to show up every day.
 
SS was never meant to be a sole source of income when you retire......It was meant to supplement any pension you might receive.....Sadly it has become a premier ponzi game that cannot survive in its present state.....

An even bigger Ponzi scheme is these ridiculous gov retirement plans, state and fed. States like Calif are already running into trouble. The feds can print money to meet their retirement fund obligations which is why in an earlier post I said your nice retirement package eventually won't buy you a loaf of bread.
 
An even bigger Ponzi scheme is these ridiculous gov retirement plans, state and fed. States like Calif are already running into trouble. The feds can print money to meet their retirement fund obligations which is why in an earlier post I said your nice retirement package eventually won't buy you a loaf of bread.

I saved when I was in my working years and although I am not wealthy could do without it and would be willing to do so if all Americans in my pay grade would do the same....would you do that?
 
If you are a gov worker you don't have a job, you have welfare where you have to show up every day.

That might be true of some Gov workers as it is in others companies in society....It was not true with the organization I worked for.....It is true I made a good salary but I worked hard for it.........As and employee of NAVSEA we did all the planning for repairs of the aircraft carrier fleet when they were in the Navy Yard......You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.
 
You would think we could fix that little discrepancy...you should only get back what you pay into it.
Wrong the monies collected for SS have and are being used by the government so the money being paid in should be collecting interest just like the money paid into any pension or retirement account.
 
SS was never meant to be a sole source of income when you retire......It was meant to supplement any pension you might receive.....Sadly it has become a premier ponzi game that cannot survive in its present state.....

Who are you to determine what someone else uses THEIR money for? Provide a source for your opinion.
 
Who are you to determine what someone else uses THEIR money for? Provide a source for your opinion.

The source is me my left wing friend.........I could care less how people spend their money Just don't come crying to me my left wing friend when your broke..........Got that????

Are you one of those lefties who want to spend a lot of money as long as its not yours but the taxpayers......
 
That might be true of some Gov workers as it is in others companies in society....It was not true with the organization I worked for.....It is true I made a good salary but I worked hard for it.........As and employee of NAVSEA we did all the planning for repairs of the aircraft carrier fleet when they were in the Navy Yard......You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.

I did overstate my argument but I have seen so much of this in my life that I am extremely biased against gov workers. I have worked around Forest Service employees all my life and as a tax payer it is truly enough to make me sick. It quite literally takes 3 of them to do the job of one man doing the exact same job in private industry.
 
I did overstate my argument but I have seen so much of this in my life that I am extremely biased against gov workers. I have worked around Forest Service employees all my life and as a tax payer it is truly enough to make me sick. It quite literally takes 3 of them to do the job of one man doing the exact same job in private industry.

The place I worked was full of retired Naval Officers and Chiefs....We were not career civil servants I am very proud for what we accomplished in my years employed there......If you did not due your job you were not around long.
 
Last edited:
Hey Mr. Angry? I told you before - I am not wasting my time replying to your closed minded, nonsensical, anger-management-class-reject posts unless it is without the moderators whose rules you keep hiding behind. It's either mono-a-mono, complete free speech or not at all. Either spew your bile filled rants at me in the Penalty Box or in pm's or your posts will be ignored - though I twice asked you this before and you couldn't handle it then so I am quite sure you can't handle it this time either. Typical. Life is WAY too short for me to waste it on the likes of you.
You post, you pay. It's all fair game. Those are the rules you have so little respect for.
 
The source is me my left wing friend.........I could care less how people spend their money Just don't come crying to me my left wing friend when your broke..........Got that????

Are you one of those lefties who want to spend a lot of money as long as its not yours but the taxpayers......

In other words you have no source meaning your statement has no credibility, MY SS benefits and pension"s" were earned over the 45 plus years that I worked. Are you one of those who want to steal from the monies earned by others. Incidentally just so that you are aware of it some righties feel they have a right to their SS and pensions.
 
You do not make contributions to insurance, you pay premiums, based on many different factors.
Semantics? Really?

SS is a flat percentage of income. Insurance is not.
Well, there goes Medicare, I guess.

You may be taxed on portions of your SS, insurance is not a taxable source except in extenuating circumstances.
Not taxable then, except for when it is.

Insurance is voluntary.
Have you read PPACA?

SS is not.
Back to Medicare again.

I don't need any schooling you may attempt to provide.
I don't think you've thought that through clearly enough. SS is insurance. It insures against the risks of old age, disability, and death. It operates just as any insurance program does. This isn't hard to figure out. It's just the way the cookie crumbles.
 
Back
Top Bottom