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

Think. Again.

(19,722 posts)
1. Please correct me if I'm wrong...
Sun Dec 15, 2024, 08:28 AM
Dec 15

...It appears to me that this would eliminate two policies that don't allow people to collect Social Security payments if no payments were ever made by them into the Social Security system.

In other words, a person who worked a job that didn't automatically remove a social security deduction from their paycheck becuase their employment had a different retirement pension system (and didn't pay into Social Security any other way) and is therefore not recieving Social Security payments now, would begin to receive Social Security payments now if this bill passes.

If that is correct, how would their Social Security benefits be calculated since they never paid anything in?

And how could the Social Security trustfund be expected to break even if it pays out to people who haven't paid in?

And why would anyone be receiving anything now if they never paid anything in?

I understand the hope is to keep the elderly funded after they stop working, and I agree with that, but shouldn't that happen under a different system than the "pay in-pay out" Social Security plan, especially when the retired employee is already receiving benefits from their non-Social Security pension plan?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Please correct me if I'm wrong... Think. Again. Dec 15 #1
I think these are people who did pay into social security MacKasey Dec 15 #2
I see, so they HAVE PAID into the SS system... Think. Again. Dec 15 #4
You are correct. The GPO IS a problem because survivor/spousal benefits are dependent benefits, valleyrogue Dec 15 #12
"An inequities will have to be fixed down the road." MichMan Dec 15 #14
I agree, it doesn't seem that 2 very different issues should be addressed by one act.. Think. Again. Dec 15 #19
Thank you, I think I understand that... Think. Again. Dec 15 #18
Why should I have to pay tax on 85% of my SS, that is tax on a tax. doc03 Dec 15 #3
Worse, why is the threshold for that tax fixed at a 1984 dollar value? Voltaire2 Dec 15 #7
That is the first time I ever saw just how many people it doc03 Dec 15 #9
Ronald Reagan signed it into law in 1983 MacKasey Dec 15 #16
Tip O'Neil proudly worked with Reagan on the bipartisan 'reform' bill. nt. Voltaire2 Dec 15 #17
SS isn't going "'broke." That is a fiction. WEP is earned benefits stolen from those who paid in. valleyrogue Dec 15 #13
No one should be exempted from paying into SS MichMan Dec 15 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author doc03 Dec 15 #11
Confused XanaDUer2 Dec 15 #6
From my understanding it will cost the SS system quite a bit of $$$. MichMan Dec 15 #8
I hope it happens. No, SS isn't going "insolvent." That is a rightwing lie since there is an valleyrogue Dec 15 #10
It's going insolvent. Igel Dec 15 #15
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Social Security Fairness ...»Reply #1