SS / SSI / SSDI increase - Page 9

Mz iMac · ‎07-26-2014

I started working for the Feds in the early 70's during the time when the Feds "took care of their own" policy. Not sure if their retirement policy is still the same.

"Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Sooner · ‎03-10-2010

@hckynut Until sometime I think in the 90's or so Fed employees did not pay into Social Security at all and were not eligable for it. I have a friend who told me this. Her husband worked for the feds fo 40 years, but also had enough paid in work time outside of his 40 years (40 'quarters' I think) paid in to the SS system that he was eligable but it was only almost enough to pay his medicare because he was penalized for the Fed pension.

Now the fed system has changed and it is basically a 401K. So there are caveats to fed retirements and the health care that they get etc. Many places like colleges and Feds went to retirement systems that are easier to move to other places because the work force is more mobile today.

So what you hear about it would have to have the big picture to really figure out what is what, and how things work. Another friend of mine used to work for the Social Security office, and always said nothing about anything with retirement funding is simple.

'Course not!

ZoetheCat · ‎11-30-2014

I’ve never really bought into the idea that social security will no longer be available at some point. As many have pointed out, a few tweaks to the system (for example, lifting the wage cap on contributions) will make the system solvent. If social security were to simply end, millions of elderly people would be homeless. If that happened, this would no longer be a “first world” country. I don’t see that happening.

My husband and I are in our mid to late fifties, and recently retired. Since we are not yet eligible for Medicare (or social security for that matter) we pay our own health insurance and it is expensive. So I will be delighted when we are eligible for Medicare (not wishing away the years though).

I’m always intrigued by the discussions of “fairness “ when it comes to paying taxes. Someone is always going to feel like they’re getting a raw deal. For many years we benefited from the cap on social security wages, and, sure, that was nice. On the other hand, there were tax policies that did not benefit us. We have no children and so did not get any deduction there. We always had a small mortgage and so didn’t get much of a mortgage interest deduction. I realize that children are expensive, and I’m not suggesting that the deduction should be eliminated. We also saved much more by not paying interest on a mortgage than we ever would have saved by the interest deduction. My point is just that everyone can point to something that might not seem “fair.” Personally, I have always been grateful to have what I have and taxes are just part of the deal. No one likes to pay them, but I view it as the price we all pay to live in a civil society.

Snowpuppy · ‎03-09-2010

@bathina wrote:
@hckynut wrote:

@

@Snowpuppy

And!! It's original intent was for those who actually paid into SS. Now it's for SSI/Disability/Survivors, and who knows what else. Used for it's original intended purpose, it would still have a few trillion, in the "Pay out to only those that put in" lock box.

hn

Can you be sure that SSI/Disability recipients never contributed? Should we cut out survivors because they took care of the home and children while a spouse worked?
Most people will overshoot what they contributed to social security if they live a long life. Most people will far outspend their medicare contribution as well.
Maybe we should consider only paying out what you paid in, and after that you're on your own both monthly income- wise and health insurance-wise.

Here's an idea: Since SS is basically an insurance plan, if you marry and want ins for your non working spouse in retirement, then you pay in more to cover your spouse and/or future children. Increased premiums like any other insurance.

Your spouse dies before you but has never received a benefit? Ok, then you get more at retirement for yourself.

CelticCrafter · ‎03-09-2010

@Mz iMac wrote:
@hckynut

I started working for the Feds in the early 70's during the time when the Feds "took care of their own" policy. Not sure if their retirement policy is still the same.

My father worked for the Federal Government and did not pay into Social Security therefore was not eligible.

I don't remember what his retirement package included.

He was young, 55 when he retired and worked part time until he had his 40 quarters.

I do know that he was on Medicare when he passed away.

LexaMom · ‎03-10-2010

Medicare Part A/B which is taken out of social security is only going up $1.50.

NYC Susan · ‎03-13-2010

@LexaMom wrote:
Medicare Part A/B which is taken out of social security is only going up $1.50.

For most people, yes. But not for everyone.

BirkiLady · ‎02-22-2015

@bathina wrote:
@hckynut wrote:

@

@Snowpuppy

And!! It's original intent was for those who actually paid into SS. Now it's for SSI/Disability/Survivors, and who knows what else. Used for it's original intended purpose, it would still have a few trillion, in the "Pay out to only those that put in" lock box.

hn

Can you be sure that SSI/Disability recipients never contributed? Should we cut out survivors because they took care of the home and children while a spouse worked?
Most people will overshoot what they contributed to social security if they live a long life. Most people will far outspend their medicare contribution as well.
Maybe we should consider only paying out what you paid in, and after that you're on your own both monthly income- wise and health insurance-wise.

@bathina @hckynut Those of us who worked most of our lives, then had to go on Disability before retirement age received an amount based upon our highest earnings in the most recent Quarters worked (figured by the SS Administration for benefits). I had to stop working at 51. Thus, my benefits (and now my Social Security check) is reduced by 15 possible working years. (My projected retirement age was 66.)

Perhaps you now understand why we never took out a mortgage longer than 15 years and never had debt of any kind. We lived on my husband's income and invested mine. We were always prepared for the uncertainty of whatever may happen with my health issues. Life doesn't go as planned. Our Wills, legal and financial documents were all kept up-to-date. However, I didn't plan on being the surviving spouse! Especially, 13 years later.

I have no idea how benefits are calculated for those on Disability who have never worked or for their parent(s) or fosterparent(s), caregiver(s), etc., who are paid to house and care for them. The terminology varies, but their source of income is from Social Security and HHS. It's a money-making scheme IMO.

ETA: Many families opt for Special Ed. or Adult Day Care, rather than have a family member receive payment for care of the disabled family member. In such instances, their home is not considered for reimbursement funds. (I don't believe.) This enables the disabled to get out in society, interact with other people, make friends and in many cases continue to learn. I don't have enough space to write about the benefits of such programs here, but it certainly is more positive than sitting at home in front of a TV or only having family members for mentors, guidance and influence on one's life.

Money screams; wealth whispers.

Teddixat · ‎10-04-2010

@Imaoldhippie

Tell that to people getting social security and Medicare. Before these benefits went into effect in the 60s people got nothing.

esmerelda · ‎03-10-2010

@Mz iMac wrote:
@Imaoldhippie wrote:
The government never gave anyone anything
As a Fed gov retiree, all my medical costs are taken care of on their dime.

@Mz iMac Unless you have some special circumstances, that’s not likely.

*********************
Keepin' it real.