- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- 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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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
Federal employees have paid into SS for a couple of decades now.He's probably getting Social Security based on employment at another job. As a Federal employee, he doesn't pay into Social Security.
They do. Like I said, the old system went away many years ago and there has long been a contribution 501k type system.IMO, all Federal/State employees should have 401K's. Not those overly-generous defined benefit plans they now enjoy. Maybe someday...
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.
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]
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.
If you are correct that they pay into social security, then they get two pensions.
Congressmen:
Congressional pension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
True, do you think that there is anything wrong with this ?
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.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...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 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.Because SS was initially set up as a Ponzi scheme and has never been changed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?