Posted on 05/03/2016 7:55:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Politicians describe Social Security as "the third rail," meaning that enacting any benefit cuts will kill them politically. But this is precisely what they voted to do under the Bipartisan Budget Bill of 2015.
The bill reduced the benefits of married couples and divorcees who were younger than 62 as of Jan. 2 by up to $60,000. Even $25,000 is a lot of money for most workers, given that the median household income is about $50,000.
The new law prevents most people who reach age 66 from providing spousal benefits to their spouse or children while letting their own retirement benefit grow through age 70. The exceptions are those who filed for their retirement benefit, but suspended it sometime before April 29.
The new law also forces spouses who were not 62 before Jan. 2, 2016 to file for their retirement benefit when they file for their spousal benefit. Since Social Security won't pay two benefits at once, this means such spouses simply get the larger of the two benefits (i.e., they lose one of the two). Spouses as well as divorced spouses (who were married for 10 or more years) who reached 62 by Jan. 2 can still collect just their spousal or divorced spousal benefit between 66 and 70 and then take their own retirement benefit at 70.
The new law was passed in the dead of night and rushed to a vote with no public hearings let alone congressional debate — this despite the fact that millions of households, most of which are low-and middle-income, were having their retirement plans upended.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
See post 33. The last 10 years you work or are not able to work MATTER.
I just showed you what the ‘calculator’ said...I get NO benefits! 45 years of work...NO BENEFITS! See post 33 AGAIN
I’m dying anyway, hopefully it will be sooner rather than later. I’m sure as hell not going to bother with trying to stay alive.
Not accurate. Based on the highest 35 years. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-06-2012/how-are-social-security-benefits-calculated.html
if you are not yet 62 and will rely on social security when you retire.
Social Security has NEVER been voluntary.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program
That was the first tax rate. But the original law provided for 0.5% increases, until 3% in 1948.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year
Social Security taxes have NEVER been deductible from federal income taxes.
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent],
The original law specified that any SURPLUS (taxes received that exceeded benefits paid) would be invested in US Treasury Bonds or an equivalent. That's still the case, and the Trust Fund has about $2.7 billion in it at the moment.
What LBJ did was change how the budget deficit was calculated -- reducing it by the Social Security surplus. It was nothing but an accounting trick to reduce the apparent size of the deficit. The surplus Social Security taxes continued to be invested in US Treasury Bonds or equivalents.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income [Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed].
If you have sufficient income from other sources, up to 85% of Social Security benefits can be taxed. It's a bit like if you made non-tax-deferred contributions to an IRA: you pay taxes on the "interest", but not on your original "contributions".
But, it wasn't Clinton/Gore that enacted the first income tax on Social Security Benefits. It was in 1983, when an bipartisan bill was enacted by Congress and signed by Reagan. At that time, up to 50% of benefits were taxable. Clinton signed a bill in 1993 to increase it to 85%.
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
No one receives Social Security benefits without contributing to it (unless you are a surviving family member after a Social Security contributor dies).
However, Social Security administrates the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which is effectively a federal welfare program. SSI is funded by general federal revenues (primarily income taxes), not the Social Security tax. Furthermore, the law was signed by Nixon in 1972.
You can find all this information here, with citations:
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
And, by repeating these myths, all you are doing is spreading misinformation and preventing rational discussion to address the REAL problems with Social Security.
So the problem is you don’t have enough credits overall to be vested. I think you will qualify for something when you turn 65, but it won’t be regular SS. Don’t lose hope. I’ll have to look into it later when I have time.
Yes, that's true, and exactly what I said: years in which you have no earnings substitute a zero into for those years.
But, that's not what you said:
Do you know they take only the last 10 years of work history to figure your SS....
If you wish to retract your posting, please do. But, don't blame me for correcting you.
Ya gotta luv Dimocrats!! Especially that rat-bastard LBJ.
Yup, just turned 60 and seeing congress and zero burning the bridge in front of me...
Have to give benefits to those illegals and rapeugees coming in.
TED CRUZ VOTED FOR THIS
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Rand Paul voted against it. Sessions (R-AL), also voted Nay
You have no idea what your talking about and your posting incorrect info as fact.
The New Deal was an exchange of constitutionally-ordered liberty for socialism and perpetual government spending and debt. In other words, it was a really Bad Deal. The Great Society was an exchange of reliance upon Almighty God, the family, the church, and the community, for a perpetual reliance upon the not-so-almighty state. The result was and is, quite predictably, what socialism always produces: destruction for the individual, the family, the community, and, ultimately, the nation as a whole.
“Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.”
— Frederic Bastiat, the Law, 1850
Actually SS will pay two benefits if both spouses have enough credits from their own work history. It will also pay benefits to disabled children independent of parents work history.
Donald is RIGHT!
There was a news item a few days ago, about the U.S.A. selling fighter jets to a mid-east muslim nation, and wanting to provide the funding to them to buy the jets. One Republican congressman is trying to block it. Yup, our "leaders" encourage other nations to buy our jets which is a "win" for our industrial/military system but those other nations are not paying, our taxpayers are paying which is a loss! Billions of dollars flowing to our enemies in hidden ways. I hope Trump puts a stop to this insanity.
I’m sorry my wording wasn’t up to your standards..I’m in FREAKING SHOCK! The bottom line is the same, so get over it.
TED CRUZ VOTED FOR THIS MESS! Session voted NAY
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?&congress=114&session=1&vote=00193
Look, if you want to get mad at someone: look in the mirror. You didn't just get the "wording" wrong, you posted something that was absolutely incorrect -- and misleading to someone that doesn't know the facts.
And, the "bottom line" isn't the same. It makes a huge difference for most people.
Why do you think it affects you? You aren't eligible for your own benefit, and it doesn't affect any spousal benefit you might receive.
You’re in my prayers... all the programs we created t.o help each other have been turned into scams to ‘protect (buy) democrat victim group members.
When Trump says ‘America First’ we GET IT...
That hasn't changed. What was changed: a once obscure strategy that became popular for married couples:
I may have not have the exact details, but that's the gist of it. There were websites that would take all the information for both spouse's, and run through a simulation of all the possible scenarios and give you the one that yielded the largest total benefit.
No, the original poster was incorrect. You can follow this link to see who is right:
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf
The original poster has amended her assertion to be mostly correct, but only after getting indignant at the multiple people that have corrected her.
It turns out her real issue is she hasn't worked for 40 non-consecutive quarters, which is a requirement to receive Social Security benefits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.