General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHouse Passes $196 Billion Social Security Bill: Will Repealing Pension Reductions Shorten The Program's Lifespan?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-passes-196-billion-social-161533489.htmlI don't understand this story. They are reducing benefits, but it's supposed to increase the deficit? It makes no sense!
marybourg
(13,247 posts)to public sector employees whose benefits were previously reduced because of their government pensions, therefore, total payouts are increased.
LymphocyteLover
(7,096 posts)not eliminating them. I guess I was surprised that increasing benefits would be a bipartisan thing. Also I don't get the rationale for doing this.
marybourg
(13,247 posts)MichMan
(13,831 posts)Did you read the link?
LymphocyteLover
(7,096 posts)I'm not sure what the rationale for this is and I was surprised GOPers are increasing benefits.
CousinIT
(10,679 posts)Previously, they got their pension and greatly reduced (or no, I'm not sure) social security. That policy would be ended.
It will take more money from the SOC Security Trust Fund, thus pushing it closer to a depletion state, where it will be unable to pay full benefits. Due to Trump's policies, this is expected now to be in 2031 or 2032 and retirees on social security will see a 30-33% reduction in their monthly benefit at that time - unless Congress does something to avoid it (I wouldn't count on that).
LymphocyteLover
(7,096 posts)unless the want to accelerate a SS shortfall
MichMan
(13,831 posts)Igel
(36,414 posts)The problem is that very often if you work for 40 years at one job or in the private sector, you get social security and nothing else.
If you work for 10 years in the private sector and then become a teacher for 30 years, you can claim both.
My teacher pension isn't inflation adjusted. It's an annuity.
Inflation was going to force me to postpone retirement by a year, until I was 67. Now it looks like I'll be 68.
MichMan
(13,831 posts)People in private employment aren't permitted to opt out.
marybourg
(13,247 posts)were believed not to need Social Security.
LymphocyteLover
(7,096 posts)MichMan
(13,831 posts)Interested in knowing how long that has been an option. What about a 401k?
LymphocyteLover
(7,096 posts)and not have to pay FICA -- but obviously part of their pay went into the pension. She's been retired about 20 years. She never got any SS benefits.
I wonder if this affects her now.
I don't know if IRAs can be like this but I doubt it.
Response to LymphocyteLover (Reply #17)
MichMan This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to MichMan (Reply #14)
marybourg This message was self-deleted by its author.
LymphocyteLover
(7,096 posts)so doesn't get SS
bucolic_frolic
(48,037 posts)From the link:
"Policy experts also express their concerns. Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, criticized the bill, stating the policy is wrong and needs broader changes.
"We should reform Social Security so that it provides basic income security to the most vulnerable Americans in old age without adding to the debt or tax burden that younger workers face," Boccia said."
XanaDUer2
(14,878 posts)GreenWave
(9,736 posts)it will stay rock solid.
marybourg
(13,247 posts)Dont confuse it with S.S. Just a coincidence of initials.
Jacson6
(953 posts)SSA will be reduced 25%.