posted on January 29, 2005 08:13:52 PM new
We each got our own benefits. I got the higher amount because I made more.
What happens you get your letter from the SS Office and that letter spells out your benefits from your time you worked. Nothing about my husband at all. Same with him...
Wow Linda you sure have a good memory....
edited to correct spelling. I am so darn cold I think it is the flu, no need to back up but I won't sneeze at my computer..
_________________
[ edited by Libra63 on Jan 29, 2005 08:15 PM ]
[ edited by Libra63 on Jan 29, 2005 08:17 PM ]
posted on January 29, 2005 08:22:59 PM new
Linda, your friends husband no doubt was a teamster and they don't get SS benefits until age 65. Between 62-65 they should get teamsters retirement. Which I think is quite a retirement. Your friend cannot collect part of his SS until age 65 when everyone goes into the SS system. Now with upping the age to receive full SS I have no idea what the benefits are....
posted on January 29, 2005 08:26:31 PM new
Linda - You posted "I believe Fed. workers and some teachers can opt-out but other than that...you want to eat [work] you pay."
I'm a Fed, and as far as I know, that choice was not offered to me either. I pay along with every other working person.
"Who's tending the bar? Sniping works up a thirst"
posted on January 29, 2005 09:42:27 PM new
Thanks for replying Libra....and I sure hope you feel better soon. If you get to the coughing stage, and it's bad...GET TO A DOCTOR...rather than cough so hard you break a rib.
edited to add: Her husband was a member of some truckers union in the state of ILL.....but I don't believe it was the teamsters....because that's what I thought at first and she said no. But she is receiving his full pension for 10 years and 1/2 of that amount thereafter. But she's also currently collecting her SS widow's benefit [age 60] and told me it was for the full amount. Reading the SS website...it says it's a reduced amount at age 60...but she's getting max. benefits, according to the amounts listed on the SS website... AND our local SS office told me I'd get my husbands full [age 66] benefits when I turn 60 too. So there has to be some other determing factor that changes something. Heaven only knows what it is. Social Security has so many if's this, and's if that and maybe's...who knows.
-----------------
koto1 - from the online SS website:
So there are still some Federal employees, those first hired prior to January 1984, who are not participants in the Social Security system. All other Federal government employees participate in Social Security like everyone else.
This change was part of the 1983 Amendments to Social Security.
------------
There are also teachers who haven't paid into the system, but get benefits from their spouses SS. Some consider that 'double dipping'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 29, 2005 09:56:35 PM new
You're welcome koto1. I'm old...so just thought I remembered there were some Fed. employees that didn't...but I didn't remember, accurately, the circumstances. Now we both know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 30, 2005 03:33:05 AM new
Now with retirement going up to age 68 I have no idea what anything is. Go to the website and ask them to send you a copy of your benefits and when they start. They will do that...
I think they do this on purpose as to keep us all guessing.
_________________
posted on January 30, 2005 08:33:32 AM newI don't see your examples as being the same thing. You aren't forced to buy a home, car, drive, life ins. etc. it's a choice/decision.
So Linda who is forcing you to go to work? Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you go to work. If you choose not to go to work, you can always go out on the streets and beg for money. It is a choice, work so I can feed my family and buy the things I need to survive or starve or hope somebody give me handouts.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 30, 2005 09:44:12 AM new
"you can always go out on the streets and beg for money-"
Yes Panhandling is very lucrative. All they ask for is bus fare but they ask many different people, They also ask for money for food. The people that do that are not poor. They had a documentary on Panhandling and some were quite wealthy.
Meet you there Linda but don't wear your stiletto's because we will be there all day. The longer we stay the more money we make and it is all free, no taxes.
_________________
posted on January 30, 2005 10:25:47 AM newYes Panhandling is very lucrative.
See you can start your own retirement plan then. You get to keep 100% of the money you get and like you said you don't pay taxes. You don't have a boss to report to. You can make your own hours.
Meet you there Linda but don't wear your stiletto's because we will be there all day. The longer we stay the more money we make and it is all free, no taxes.
You better watch what you wear because you want to look like you are panhandling and not oferring up any of your services LOL
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 30, 2005 10:49:20 AM new "You better watch what you wear because you want to look like you are panhandling and not oferring up any of your services LOL
...Or fall down and break your brittle old bones! Just think, you could be facing a doctor who rides the same high horse as fenix.
posted on January 30, 2005 10:57:23 AM newMeet you there Linda but don't wear your stiletto's because we will be there all day. Oh darn, libra, no stiletto's???? lol
I did want to share with you something that I love about the town I live in, because you mentioned standing in line [for forever] which in any government office in CA, that was my experience also. When I moved here they were building a new SS building. Then when my husband passed and I had to go into the building to file for his death benefit.....I was one of TWO people waiting to be helped. Huge marbled lobby, one security guard with her own desk and glass [plexi-glass?] partition, two front desk clerks and other employees in the back room. Mind you this is pretty much a retirement town.
Now I'm from CA where you do wait in long lines for hours and hours. I'm sure you can imagine what a shock it was for me to have come from that into this situation. I love it and our new post office is the same way. Five clerks...and there's never a line. I keep comparing it to my local PO in San Jose, where the line wrapped around and around and dropping off my ebay packages took 1/2 a day to accomplish.
----------------
LOL logan - Hookers aren't the only women who wear stiletto's. At our age we'd look pretty silly in them, plus I'd probably twist or break my ankle. But in my youth....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 30, 2005 02:45:16 PM new
are you sure it is 60?
a friend of mine who is under 60 ,she is caring for a sick husband aged 78,she has asked SS many times and they told her it is not 60,it is 62.
now i know another woman who is 60,she is receiving widow benefits from her diabled husband.
is there a difference between widow of ss recipient and widow of a disabled ss recipient??
-sig file -------Life is one big happy 'All You Can Eat' buffet .
posted on February 1, 2005 08:57:02 AM new
Linda is just upset because she believes she should be entitled to something that she is not.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on February 1, 2005 02:51:28 PM new
Little Black Lies
BY PAUL KRUGMAN
Source: nytimes.com | Date: January 28, 2005
Social Security privatization really is like tax cuts, or the Iraq war: the administration keeps on coming up with new rationales, but the plan remains the same. President Bush's claim that we must privatize Social Security to avert an imminent crisis has evidently fallen flat. So now he's playing the race card.
This week, in a closed meeting with African-Americans, Mr. Bush asserted that Social Security was a bad deal for their race, repeating his earlier claim that "African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people." In other words, blacks don't live long enough to collect their fair share of benefits.
This isn't a new argument; privatizers have been making it for years. But the claim that blacks get a bad deal from Social Security is false. And Mr. Bush's use of that false argument is doubly shameful, because he's exploiting the tragedy of high black mortality for political gain instead of treating it as a problem we should solve.
Let's start with the facts. Mr. Bush's argument goes back at least seven years, to a report issued by the Heritage Foundation - a report so badly misleading that the deputy chief actuary (now the chief actuary) of the Social Security Administration wrote a memo pointing out "major errors in the methodology." That's actuary-speak for "damned lies."
In fact, the actuary said, "careful research reflecting actual work histories for workers by race indicate that the nonwhite population actually enjoys the same or better expected rates of return from Social Security" as whites.
Here's why. First, Mr. Bush's remarks on African-Americans perpetuate a crude misunderstanding about what life expectancy means. It's true that the current life expectancy for black males at birth is only 68.8 years - but that doesn't mean that a black man who has worked all his life can expect to die after collecting only a few years' worth of Social Security benefits. Blacks' low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood. African-American men who make it to age 65 can expect to live, and collect benefits, for an additional 14.6 years - not that far short of the 16.6-year figure for white men.
Second, the formula determining Social Security benefits is progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage.
Finally, Social Security isn't just a retirement program; it's also a disability insurance program. And blacks are much more likely than whites to receive disability benefits.
Put it all together, and the deal African-Americans get from Social Security turns out, according to various calculations, to be either about the same as that for whites or somewhat better. Hispanics, by the way, clearly do better than either.
So the claim that Social Security is unfair to blacks is just false. And the fact that privatizers keep making that claim, after their calculations have repeatedly been shown to be wrong, is yet another indicator of the fundamental dishonesty of their sales pitch.
What's really shameful about Mr. Bush's exploitation of the black death rate, however, is what it takes for granted.
The persistent gap in life expectancy between African-Americans and whites is one measure of the deep inequalities that remain in our society - including highly unequal access to good-quality health care. We ought to be trying to diminish that gap, especially given the fact that black infants are two and half times as likely as white babies to die in their first year.
Now nobody can expect instant progress in reducing health inequalities. But the benefits of Social Security privatization, if any, won't materialize for many decades. By using blacks' low life expectancy as an argument for privatization, Mr. Bush is in effect taking it as a given that 40 or 50 years from now, large numbers of African-Americans will still be dying before their time.
Is this an example of what Mr. Bush famously called "the soft bigotry of low expectations?" Maybe not: it isn't particularly soft to treat premature black deaths not as a tragedy we must end but as just another way to push your ideological agenda. But bigotry - yes, that sounds like the right word.
posted on February 1, 2005 03:53:58 PM new
stopwhining - My advice would be to have the woman who cares for her disabled husband call her local SS office and ask.
But to be clear...she's not considered a 'widow' until her husband passes away. Until then they would consider her his caregiver...but she might still be eligable for SS benefits BECAUSE she cares for him. Be sure to have her call to find out.
And yes....for widows/widowers they don't wait until age 62 to begin collecting..they can collect at age 60.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 1, 2005 04:06:43 PM new
THE WELFARE STATE
Pride and Prejudice
"Hell no, we won't go" is the wrong liberal approach on Social Security reform.
BY BOB KERREY
Tuesday, February 1, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
The late Pat Moynihan used to joke when I asked him why liberals were so reluctant to consider changing Social Security so that it guaranteed wealth as well as income: "It's because they worry that wealth will turn Democrats into Republicans." Leaving aside that possible correlation, it will be a shame if liberal voices, values and ideas are not brought into the debate initiated by President Bush's Social Security reform proposal. To make certain the reforms are done correctly liberal thinking is urgently needed.
There is no doubt that Social Security and Medicare are two of liberalism's most enduring and popular triumphs. And there is no doubt that a vocal and influential minority remains true to its strong conservative belief that the Social Security Act of 1935 and the 1965 amendments to this act, which created Medicare and Medicaid, represent socialistic and dangerous interferences with the marketplace. However, liberals are wrong to fear that President Bush's proposal represents a threat to Social Security.
I sincerely hope they do not merely defend their proudest achievement. I hope they see that President Bush is giving them an opportunity to finally do something about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
First of all, fears that Social Security will be destroyed are exaggerated. Across all generations and within both major parties, Social Security and Medicare are seen as a vital part of American life. They represent a powerful intergenerational contract between younger Americans in the work force who agree to be taxed on behalf of older, eligible Americans. What makes the contract work is that the expectation of those in the work force is that when they pass the age of eligibility, successive generations of workers will not object to the taxes that must be imposed on them to cover the costs of their income and health benefits.
Secondly, President Bush's fears of a bankrupt Social Security and his rhetoric of the program being in financial crisis are also exaggerated. Relatively small changes in taxes and/or benefits would restore the promise to all living beneficiaries--those eligible today and those eligible in the future. Unlike the situation that existed in 1983, when Congress and the president acted to avoid a financial crisis, today's financial problems are relatively small.
On the other hand, there are two problems with Social Security that are serious enough to be called a crisis.
The first is that in eight years the income from a 12.4% payroll tax will be insufficient to pay the old age, survivor and disability benefits owed at that time. From that point on, Social Security will begin to redeem some of the hundreds of billions of dollars of Treasury bonds it has "accumulated in the trust fund" in order to issue monthly checks to beneficiaries.
Though these bonds are far from "worthless," as some critics allege, the picture of them "accumulating in a trust fund" is not accurate either. That is because, in order to convert these bonds into cash, the U.S. Treasury will use the cash from individual and corporate income taxes. While some income taxes are currently used to pay Social Security benefits, the dollar amounts do not pose a serious budgetary challenge. In eight years that will change. Coupled with the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, the annual benefit demands of Social Security will put real pressure on Congress to cut spending on defense and nondefense appropriations.
It is at this point in time that the demographic and monetary demands of the baby boom generation will become painfully apparent. The disinvestment in public infrastructure caused by the growth in Medicare and Medicaid will become even worse than it is today. And the nature of this crisis will be considerably more daunting than that faced squarely by Congress and the president in 1983. Liberals, who have silently watched the share of state and federal spending apportioned to the elderly grow at the expense of education, training, child care and research, will be appalled to discover how much their silence has cost them.
The second crisis is the one for which liberals are even more urgently needed. This crisis is the shockingly low rates of savings and pitifully inadequate amount of preparation being made by American households for their old age. If liberals were to join this debate and insist upon provisions that would lead to dramatic reductions of the numbers of poor elderly, the outcome could be a dramatically enhanced quality of life for all, reduced dependency upon welfare in old age, and downward pressure on the social costs of growing old.
If liberals joined this debate they would insist that the guaranteed transfer payment of Social Security remain intact. With the evidence that trade, technology and immigration are putting downward pressure on unskilled wages, they might even be able to succeed in changing the current benefit formula so that more than 50% of the first $900 of income was replaced. Perhaps they could even convince their Republican colleagues to eliminate penalties that affect stay-at-home women.
Liberals would fight to make certain that contributions to private accounts were progressive in order to benefit lower-wage workers. They might even argue that accounts be opened at birth, thus giving Americans the longest possible time to accumulate wealth. No doubt they would insist that investment options be carefully regulated to keep administrative costs and risks as low as possible. And since liberals oftentimes understand the good that markets can do even more than some of their conservative colleagues, they could see the wisdom of changing the tax code so that no income taxes were levied on income that went into these savings accounts.
All of these would practically guarantee a muscular market response that would give future Americans larger amounts of insured non-employment income to add to the $800 per month on average they receive from Social Security.
None of this will happen if liberals merely shout "hell no, we won't go." The best they can hope for with that strategy is to prevent reform from happening. They should feel no pride of accomplishment if that is the result.
Mr. Kerrey, a Democratic former senator from Nebraska, is the president of New School University, in New York City.
-----------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 1, 2005 04:08:34 PM new
Stopwinning disabled benefits are different that SS benefits. I would suggest that she call or go to her local SS office and find out what really is right. The people that answer the phones at the 1-800 number are very helpful.
posted on February 1, 2005 04:21:11 PM new
Social Security
Cuts in disability benefits seen in Social Security plan
By Leigh Strope
Source: Associated Press | Date: January 18, 2005
Disability benefits may not be safe from the across-the-board cuts that are likely in President Bush's proposal to allow personal investment accounts in the Social Security program.
Retirement and disability benefits are calculated using the same formula, so if future promised retirement benefits are cut, then disability benefits also would be reduced -- unless the program is somehow separated.
This raises big questions about how investment accounts would be structured for the disabled, especially if they are injured at a young age or are dependent on a parent. Disabled beneficiaries typically work less and need benefits sooner, so the accounts would not provide enough income to them.
"The Social Security programs are insurance programs, not investment programs, designed to reduce risk from certain life events," said Marty Ford of the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities.
Currently, disabled workers move seamlessly through the Social Security system, often unaware they draw their benefits from the disability program until they reach retirement age and shift to the retirement program. That would change with investment accounts, advocates say, with people falling through holes in a new system.
About 16 percent of the 47 million people receiving Social Security benefits are disabled workers and their dependents. The impact of accounts on beneficiaries who aren't retirees has not been publicly discussed by the Bush administration.
Supporters of Bush's overhaul contend that the disability program should be treated separately.
"The proper way to deal with this is to essentially make it clear that these are two different programs and to separate the benefit formulas," said David John, Social Security senior analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"One is an insurance program and one is essentially a retirement program," John said. "They have vastly different characteristics, they have vastly different administrative structures."
posted on February 1, 2005 04:28:16 PM new
Social Security
Pelosi to Chairman Thomas: Do Not Discriminate Against Women by Lowering Their Social Security Benefits
Today, Leader Pelosi and 26 women Members of Congress sent the following letter to Ways & Means Chairman Bill Thomas, in response to his recent comments that Congress should consider providing different Social Security benefits for men and women. The text of the letter follows:
Source: http://democraticleader.house.gov| Date: January 12, 2005
January 24, 2005
Dear Chairman Thomas:
We are extremely concerned about your recent comments last week, and again this weekend, suggesting that because women live longer, they should receive lower Social Security benefits than men. And your comments yesterday refusing to rule out drastic cuts in the guaranteed benefits provided to all Social Security beneficiaries – something that would disproportionately affect women – were equally as troubling.
As you know, women comprise the majority of Social Security beneficiaries, representing almost 60 percent of all Social Security recipients age 65 and over. Without Social Security, 52 percent of white women, 65 percent of African American women, and 61 percent of Hispanic women over the age of 65 would live in poverty. Women are also less likely than men to have pensions or retirement savings to supplement their Social Security checks. They depend on the fundamental guarantee of Social Security.
Social Security helps level the playing field for women. Women, on average, earn less than their male counterparts and also tend to have fewer years in the workforce. Cutting their benefits even further would make it even harder for them to achieve financial security in retirement. That is not the path we want to take.
Mr. Chairman, America’s women have heard nothing that would reassure them that the Republican plans for Social Security will not undermine the economic foundation of their retirement. We ask you to clarify your previous statements supporting benefit cuts for America’s working women, and to explain how your goal of privatizing the Social Security program makes it easier, not harder, for women to achieve the financial security they have earned and paid for during their working years.
posted on February 1, 2005 05:09:32 PM new
After all we have to agree Pelosi knows everything. Give her an inch and she takes a mile. Watch out Hillary here comes Pelosi.
Supporters of Bush's overhaul contend that the disability program should be treated separately
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
The people in the US are ignorant when it comes to disability from SS. Now that includes organ transplants also. May US citizens don't know how easy it is to get disability but because I worked in the medical records department of a clinic, Before you complain crowfarm I did two jobs. 1. x-ray tech & 2. Medical Records. I Got paid for only one job, and almost everyday someone was trying to claim disability I know how easy it is. This was during the clinton administration and all they had to do was apply and all of a sudden there was a disability check in their bank account. They had to show no accountability. Just apply and they got it. It is also a higher benefit than what they would have received if they waited for SS but then some were young and I honestly think they didn't think of the consequences because after they received that benefit they could only make $500.00 a month and if they did and it continued for 3 or 5 months the disability would be dropped.
Previously before that time they were required to go to a SS physician where they underwent a complete examination, x-rays included, then the findings would go before a board to determine if they deserved it. Not any more. It's a piece of cake now. Now that has to be revamped.
If they are a long term disability person they do have to go before a review board every so many years...
posted on February 2, 2005 02:59:50 AM newThere are also teachers who haven't paid into the system, but get benefits from their spouses SS. Some consider that 'double dipping'.
Linda, could you please elaborate on who these teachers are? Under what circumstances would a teacher not pay into the system, regardless of whether they receive spousal benefits or not?
I do know, that teachers sometimes don't recieve full SS benefits, because they also receive retirement benefits from state teacher's retirement programs, or from 403-b accounts if they have invested in them.
I've never heard of teachers not paying into the system, and can't find anything online about it...Must be a pretty rare circumstance and a very small number of teachers.
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on February 2, 2005 03:22:02 AM new
If you work for a major company,i.e. chrysler, teachers, and I can't think of any others they usually have their own retirement but then at 65 they go on SS and get medicare. In their contracts they have their own retirement age. I think teachers at 57 and major companies can retire people when they want. i.e. Johnson Wax had early outs with many employees that were close to retirement age and this is the way that companies don't have to lay off or fire anyone. They give them a decent benefit package and if they like it out they go.
posted on February 2, 2005 03:57:01 AM new
Hey...maggie, did you ever get around to calling your SS office?
-----------------------
I sure don't understand how or why anyone would not want to 'own' all or part of their own SS money. It takes away the politicans using it to scare the elderly into thinking their SS benefits might be reduced, each election cycle...it's allows the accounts to be passed to our heirs and it takes away control from government and gives it to the individual.
Who besides socialists would be against that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 2, 2005 05:45:54 AM new
Anyone getting their information on the President's proposed SS plan from MoveOn.org...or their TV ads, might want to read the truth on factcheck.
MoveOn.org Social Security Ad
Liberal group's ad falsely claims Bush plan would cut benefits 46 percent.
Summary
MoveOn.org launched a false TV ad in the districts of several House members, claiming through images and words that President Bush plans to cut Social Security benefits nearly in half. Showing white-haired workers lifting boxes, mopping floors, shoveling and laundering, the ad says "it won't be long before America introduces the working retirement."
Actually, Bush has said repeatedly he won't propose any cuts for those already retired, or near retirement. What MoveOn.org calls "Bush's planned Social Security benefit cuts" is actually a plan that would hold starting Social Security benefits steady in purchasing power, rather than allowing them to nearly double over the next 75 years as they are projected to do under the current benefit formula. The White House has discussed such a proposal, and may or may not adopt it when the President puts forth a detailed plan expected in late February.
------
We'll hear tonight when the President address the Nation...what HIS plans for SS are all about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 2, 2005 08:20:19 AM new
Anybody who thinks they will control their privatize SS account is dreaming....you will have a VERY limited say in what you invest in with that "rock solid" stock market run by all those totally "honest" stockbrokers.
You can NOW do that with a 401K plan.
If it takes 1 TRILLION dollars to fix it...why not just put 1 trillion dollars into it....it'll build up.
posted on February 2, 2005 08:36:14 AM new
There are some who are calling for it not to be a small percentage...but rather the full amount.
And as to control...we have no control over our own funds now. ZILCH...NADA... Somehow you think that's better in some way than at least making it so a small part can be under our own decision making abilities. Or do you think people are too stupid to handle their own money and make their own decisions....so we have to leave it in big brothers hands.
As to the cost...many are discussing how it could be done so it would cost very little.
Not the huge amount the dems are saying it would be. Just more scare tactics, from the left, as usual.
It's only in the discussion phase...Bush has NOT put his plan out yet....no leglislation has been formed...it hasn't been 'bantered' about by our Congress...compromises made...etc.
But the left is already arguing that it's all wrong. Except a few dems who are more reasonable and see how they can propose some changes they'd also like to see...because they ALSO think changes are necessary and the system is in crisis. Unlike the ultra-liberals who support socialism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
Sniping works up a thirst"
