I sure did have positive things to say about social securtity. As I said before if the government would keep it's paws out of the till the social security system would be just fine. As is the hype over the threat of it not supporting the people is propaganda that has been disputed by financial wizards. Political con artists use it as a political forum because it is a fearmongering tactic to make them look like they care about the future of the aging. When in truth there is no big problem with the program. So yes that is positive, the program is fine.

As for the other issues, I may have mentioned illegals but I was not the one who started the illegal debate, lindy, you did. If you read back you will see who started the thread off on another subject. I also did not start the great christian presecution chant going on, you did. I never mentioned religion until others did.

I have stayed on topic as the topic changed and now I am on topic with the topic changing back. No skin off my nose. I have an opinion about just about everything and I will always share.

I agree and the sad thing is that when something gets forced down your throat over and over again, you have to get forceful back. I have no problem with religion until it impinges on my rights to live free of religion if I so choose. Then I have issues.

TINKERBELL says:

PLEASE, dear children, this is about Social Security.

I am more than positive that there are viewers out there that would appreciate keeping apprised of the events taking place within the USA Social Security program.

Again, this is not for hate conversations.

It is for informative and educational purposes.

Funny

Most of us need to be informed about social security since we have elderly parents.

I hope I can clear this up.

Social Security is solvent until 2032!

In other words, THERE IS NO CRISIS PEOPLE!!!!

The Bush Administration tried to manufacture
a CRISIS THAT DOES NOT EXIST!!!

That's so their cronies in the banking and
financial industries can get their dirty
little hands on the Social Security
Trust Funds AND MAKE FILTHY LUCRE OFF
OF THEM!!!

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/trustees98_press.htm

I have stayed on topic and with the current topic as it evovled. As I said earlier and several times there is no problem with social security this crisis is a political ploy for incumbants to use instead of valid topics.

insert whistling innocently emoticon here

LINDYY REPORTS: (This is a little long, but explains questions arising from the below topic) Have patience and read thoroughly


SOCIAL SECURITY - REGARDING THOSE WHO ALSO WORKED FOR THE GOVERNMENT

How does enactment of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-203) change the GPO Provision?

QUESTION:
How does enactment of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-203) change the GPO Provision?

ANSWER:
H.R. 743, the “Social Security Protection Act of 2004,” was passed by Congress on February 11, 2004 and signed into law by the President on March 2, 2004. (P.L. 108-203).

The law contains a provision that eliminates the “last day covered employment exemption” to the GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET(GPO). The GPO provision reduces the amount of a spouse’s or surviving spouse’s benefit by two-thirds of the amount of that person’s government pension if the person was employed by the government and the employment was not covered by Social Security. Previously, an individual was exempt from the GPO if his or her last day of government employment was in a job covered by both Social Security and the government pension system.

The law requires that the last 60 months of a person’s government employment before retirement be covered by Social Security and the pension system in order to avoid reduction under the GPO.[1]

Changes to the GPO Provision in P.L. 108-203

Requires that State and local government workers be covered by Social Security throughout their last 60 months (5 years) of employment with the pension-paying government entity in order to be exempt from the GPO provision, instead of just their last day of employment.

Provides for a transition for workers whose last day of government employment occurs within 5 years after the date of enactment. For those workers, the requirement that their last 60 months of government employment be covered by Social Security will be reduced (but not to less than one month) by the number of months in total that the worker had in covered government service under the same retirement system before the date of enactment. If the 60-month period is reduced, the months of service needed to fulfill this requirement must be performed after the date of enactment.

Effective for applications filed after the month of enactment (i.e., after March 31, 2004). However, the change would not apply to applications filed after the month of enactment if the worker's last day of government employment occurs before July 1, 2004. .
Explanation of Effective Dates and Transition Period Rules

The legislation modifying the GPO exemption was enacted on March 2, 2004

The effective date provisions will apply as follows:
Any current Social Security beneficiary who is receiving Social Security spouse's or surviving spouse's benefits and does not have the GPO applied because of the last day of covered employment exemption would continue to receive their Social Security benefits without the application of the GPO.

Any State and local government worker who applied for Social Security spouse’s or surviving spouse’s benefits before April 2004 would avoid the GPO reduction if their last day of government employment was covered by both Social Security and their pension system (regardless of when that “last day” occurs).

Any State and local government worker whose last day of government employment was before July 1, 2004 and whose last day of employment was covered both by Social Security and their pension system would not have the GPO applied to their future claim for Social Security spouse's and surviving spouse's benefit. For example, a teacher whose last day of government employment in June 2004 was covered under Social Security and the pension system would be exempted from the GPO regardless of when he/she filed for benefits.

Any State or local government worker whose last day of government employment occurs within 5 years after the date of enactment (before March 2, 2009) could qualify for a reduction in the requirement that the last 60 months of government employment be covered by Social Security. For these workers, the "last 60 months" requirement can be reduced (but not to less than one month) by the total number of months that the worker had in covered government service under the same retirement system before the date of enactment. If the 60-month period is reduced, the remaining months of service needed to fulfill the requirement must be performed after the date of enactment.

For example, consider a teacher who was working in a non-covered position at the time of enactment but had previously worked in a covered job in the same retirement system for 12 months in 1997. Because she had previously worked in covered employment for 12 months, the requirement that her last 60 months of employment be in a covered position would be reduced to 48 months, or four years. If she began working after enactment in covered employment under the same retirement system as her prior government work, AND worked in the covered position for at least the final 48-month period of her employment, AND her last day of employment was before March 2, 2009, she would be exempt from the GPO offset.

For all other non-covered State and local government workers, if they first switch to government employment covered by Social Security and their pension plan after June 30, 2004, they would have to work in covered government employment for the entire final 60-month period of their government employment in order to avoid the GPO.

To further clarify how the effective date for this change to the GPO provision would affect individuals in certain situations, a series of questions and answers follows.

Questions and Answers—Impact of Effective Date for Legislation Amending the “Last Day Exemption” for the Government Pension Offset (GPO)
When will this change in the “last day exemption” to the GPO provision become effective?
Generally, the change would be effective for individuals eligible for benefits and who filed in April 2004 or later. However, the change would not apply for any worker whose last day of government employment occurs before July 1, 2004, even if the application for benefits is filed in April, 2004 or later.

Will the change in the law affect anyone already receiving Social Security benefits who were able to use the “last day exemption” to avoid the GPO provision?
No. Anyone who is already receiving full Social Security spouse's or surviving spouse's benefits because of the last-day exemption will continue to receive his/her full benefit.

Will the change in the law affect the future Social Security benefits of anyone who worked in non-covered employment but recently retired after working their final day of government employment in a job that was covered by Social Security?
No. Any State and local government employee whose last day of government employment was before July 1, 2004, and whose last day of employment was covered both by Social Security and their pension system, would not have the GPO applied to their future claim for Social Security spouse's and surviving spouse's benefit. This also applies to anyone who returns to work after meeting the “last day in covered employment” GPO exemption as long as no contributions are made, by either the employer or employee, to the pension plan to increase his/her annuity.

For example, Ms. Smith plans to retire as a teacher under the Texas Retirement System (TRS) and is able to work her last day of employment in a position covered by Social Security and TRS on June 1, 2004. However, Ms. Smith plans to return to work as a part-time, substitute teacher in September 2004. Since Ms. Smith is retired, and substitute teachers are not covered under TRS and no contributions will be made to TRS, Ms. Smith can return as a substitute teacher and not lose her “last day in covered employment” GPO exemption.

Would the change affect those workers who either (1) retire soon after enactment or (2) are now vested for their pension but not yet eligible, if they are able to switch to Social Security-covered employment before retiring? What if they won’t be eligible for Social Security for several years?
If their last day of employment occurs before July 1, 2004, and that last day is covered both by Social Security and by their pension system, then they can meet the exemption and avoid the GPO. It does not matter whether they would not be eligible for Social Security benefits for several years.

If a person, who is eligible for a Social Security benefit, files for those benefits before the change becomes effective, but delays retirement, will he/she still be able to make use of the current last-day exemption?
Yes. Anyone eligible for Social Security spouse's or surviving spouse's benefits who filed for those benefits before April 1, 2004, can work his/her last day in employment covered by both Social Security and the pension plan and qualify for the last-day exemption— regardless of how far in the future that retirement occurs. (A person who is not yet eligible—e.g., not yet age 60 for widow’s benefits—could not meet this criterion by “advance filing” by March 31, 2004.)

For example, Ms. Bailey is age 62 and works at ABC school district which is covered under TRS, but not Social Security. Ms. Bailey files for spousal benefits March 20, 2004, but continues to work at ABC school district. Five years later, Ms. Bailey decides to retire from ABC school district and finds a position at another school district that is covered by Social Security and TRS. Ms. Bailey works in the covered position for 2 weeks and retires. Ms. Bailey meets the “last day in coverage” GPO exemption because she filed for spousal benefits before April 1, 2004.

Would the change affect a worker who switched from non-covered to covered employment in the past and plans to remain in that covered position until retirement in a year or so? If so, would the amount of time the worker had previously spent in covered employment make a difference?
Yes, this change would affect a worker who had switched from non-covered to covered employment in the past and planned to remain in the covered position until retirement in a year or so (unless the worker filed for benefits before April 1, 2004 – see above). In order to be exempt from the offset, a worker who had switched to covered employment and planned to retire after June 30, 2004 would need to meet the requirement that the last 60 months of employment be in a position covered by Social Security. However, if the teacher retired before March 2, 2009 (five years after enactment), the last 60 months requirement would be reduced (but not below one month) by the number of months the worker had worked in covered employment prior to enactment of the legislation.

For example, consider a teacher who switched from a non-covered position to a covered position in 2001 and worked for 24 months in that covered position. The teacher then switched backed to a non-covered position. After enactment of the legislation, the teacher again switched to a Social Security-covered position and worked in that covered position for her last 36 months before retiring in 2007. This teacher would be exempt from the GPO. Because the teacher’s last day of employment was before March 2, 2009, the last 60 months requirement would be reduced to 36 months (60 months minus the 24 months of covered employment prior to enactment).

Would the change affect a worker who is going to retire in 1 to 3 years?
Most likely. The person could avoid the GPO under the “last day exemption” rule only if he or she (1) is eligible and files for benefits before April 1, 2004; or 2) changes his or her plans and retires before July 1, 2004 with the last day of employment covered by both Social Security and the worker’s pension system . Otherwise, the worker could avoid the GPO only by switching to employment covered by both Social Security and the worker’s pension system and by meeting the requirement for 60 months of employment in a covered position. The switch could occur at anytime in the future, but he/she would need to work in covered employment for the entire final 60-month period of his/her government employment in order to avoid the GPO. (See above for an explanation of how the 60-month requirement could be reduced if he/she had previously worked in a covered government position).

Would the change affect a younger worker (e.g., age 45) whose employment is not covered under Social Security?
Most likely. The person could avoid the GPO only by switching to employment covered by both Social Security and the worker’s pension system and by meeting the requirement for 60 months of employment in a covered government position. The switch could occur at anytime in the future, but he/she would need to work in covered employment for the entire final 60-month period of his/her government employment in order to avoid the GPO.

If a person is still able to avoid the GPO by making use of the “last day exemption,” will any other offset apply to his or her Social Security benefits?
If the person is insured for Social Security retirement benefits based on his/her own work, his/her Social Security retirement benefit would be subject to the Windfall Elimination Provision because the person is receiving a pension based on work not covered by Social Security. Under this provision, the Social Security retirement benefit is computed under a less-heavily weighted benefit formula. The result is that the retirement benefit can be reduced, but not eliminated. Since the GPO does not apply in this case (due to the “last day exemption”) this person will receive the full amount of any spouse’s/survivor’s benefit due him/her.

Collecting Social Security isn't going to matter much anyway.

You won't be able to live on that alone, unless you want to live in a box and eat dog food.

Better have Plan B ready when you retire.

Social Security, was not intended to be the SOLE source of income, it was started to HELP/SUPPLEMENT retirement funds and services.

Lindyy

Lindyy is please to report:

Press Office Home

Social Security Announces 2.3 Percent Benefit Increase for 2008

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 Mark Lassiter, Press Officer
For Immediate Release 410-965-8904
press.office@ssa.gov
SOCIAL SECURITY

News Release

Social Security Announces 2.3 Percent Benefit Increase for 2008
Monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits for more than 54 million Americans will increase 2.3 percent in 2008, the Social Security Administration announced today.

Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits increase automatically each year based on the rise in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), from the third quarter of the prior year to the corresponding period of the current year. This year's increase in the CPI-W was 2.3 percent.

The 2.3 percent Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) will begin with benefits that nearly 50 million Social Security beneficiaries receive in January 2008. Increased payments to more than 7 million Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries will begin on December 31.

Some other changes that take effect in January of each year are based on the increase in average wages. Based on that increase, the maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax (taxable maximum) will increase to $102,000 from $97,500. Of the estimated 164 million workers who will pay Social Security taxes in 2008, nearly 12 million will pay higher taxes as a result of the increase in the taxable maximum.

Information about Medicare changes for 2008 can be found at www.cms.hhs.gov.

LINDYY'S FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

WHEN SHOULD YOU START COLLECTING YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY:

No matter what your full retirement age (also called "normal retirement age") is, you may start receiving benefits as early as age 62.

If you retire early:

You can retire at any time between age 62 and full retirement age. However, if you start benefits early, your benefits are reduced a fraction of a percent for each month before your full retirement age.

Pros and Cons

As a general rule, early or late retirement will give you about the same total Social Security benefits over your lifetime. However, if you retire early, the monthly benefit amounts will be smaller to take into account the longer period you will receive them.

There are advantages and disadvantages to taking your benefit before your full retirement age. The advantage is that you collect benefits for a longer period of time. The disadvantage is your benefit is permanently reduced. Each person's situation is different, check with your local office if your are considering colleting soon. Also, keep in mind that there are other things to consider when making the correct decision about your retirement benefits and contact Social Security before you decide when to retire.

Note: If you delay your benefits until after full retirement age, you also may be eligible for delayed retirement credits that would increase your monthly benefit.

Reminder, guys: let's discuss the topic and NOT other members.

There's quite a bit of leeway allowed in the "Current News & Events" and "Religion" forums, but that doesn't mean that we can take pot-shots at each other.

No name-calling or derisive talk about each other, please...

Happy Valentines to you ,the wee ones and the kitties lori

thanks, jax...

um, what's valentines day, lol?

Hey, you 2, are my "posts" on SS helpful or potentially helpful, or do you have any ideas or suggestions?

I started this thread to try to put something positive into Current Events, and to learn myself.

Thanks.

Lindyy

lindyy, i think it's a great topic, with much potential.

It's good information.

However, I thought there was a discussion on whether or not it was a good idea to privatize social security and why.

Is this no longer the case?

mnhiker:

Cutelildevilsmom had posed the question and it certainly is open for discussion.

I myself do not think, due to the complexity of the program, that it would benefit by being privitized.

Let's keep it to social security though.

Lindyy