Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Social Security Fairness Act clears Senate procedural hurdle, on path for final passage [View all]walkingman
(8,759 posts)11. Sure - it might be impossible to know, but I wonder if you had paid into SS your entire 43 years
would the passage of this bill mean that you will draw the same or more than you would have had your government job not been excluded from paying SS. I personally think you should be able to draw the equiv but not more, that is what I would classify as double-dipping.
I've always heard that government jobs might pay less than private sector but I'm not so sure about that - maybe in the old days but one big advantage of a government job is the benefits in many cases.
I don't resent anyone from making more in retirement but I wonder as a "fairness" issue especially since it is reported to cause the SS trust fund to depleted more than it would be otherwise. ☮
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Social Security Fairness Act clears Senate procedural hurdle, on path for final passage [View all]
BumRushDaShow
Dec 18
OP
Is this not "double-dipping"? If this hastens the SS cuts projected in 2033 - then do something to fix that!
walkingman
Dec 18
#1
As usual, a stupid move by excluding some jobs from paying into SS. Simple solution - everyone pays FICA taxes.
walkingman
Dec 18
#3
This generally covers people who worked at a job where they paid into SS and were fully vested
BumRushDaShow
Dec 18
#4
OK - that makes sense. But would it be the equiv of someone that paid into SS the entire 35 years?
walkingman
Dec 18
#7
If you mean their soc sec taxes remain in the portion of soc sec that's invested in treasury
Deminpenn
Dec 18
#12
And most people are ignorant of the fact that small business owners pay both parts of this contribution.
Hope22
Dec 19
#21
There are 14 states that have SS benefits "offset" for the last 20 plus years. Huge reduction in what you worked for.
Evolve Dammit
Dec 18
#5
I lost over 2/3. Of the 14 states that are affected, there are some big ones like CA, so it will probably never change.
Evolve Dammit
Dec 19
#25
Can You answer the above question - or than what you would have gotten if you paid your entire career into SS
walkingman
Dec 18
#8
worked 10 years in "private sector" and went to a State government job for 33 years? Clarify your question
Evolve Dammit
Dec 18
#9
Sure - it might be impossible to know, but I wonder if you had paid into SS your entire 43 years
walkingman
Dec 18
#11
I only want what I paid in for ten years. The offset is denying those SS earned credits.
Evolve Dammit
Dec 18
#15
Well back in 1986, a law was passed that put the feds under Social Security
BumRushDaShow
Dec 19
#28