Social Security

[Goldendragon7]

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of
course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives
may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred

Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Youn ger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I
pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid)
into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our
employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after
retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from
under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into th e Social Security
plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

 

[michaeledward]

If I am not mistaken (and I may very well be), many civil servants to not participate in Social Security. School Teachers, for instance, in Massachusetts belong to the state pension plan.

Once upon a time in America, corporations provided such pension plans for all their employees. Defined Benefit programs, as they are called, now are few and far between. The current tax rules make Participitory Plans, such as a 401(k) plan, a better choice for corportation (not necessarily the employee).

Also, please remember that Social Security was never meant to be a citizens' only retirement plan. It was designed to be a safety net. You will all recall that the program, when started, kicked in at age 65. Do you recall what the life expectancy was when Social Security started? In 1935, men were expected to live 59 years, and women were expected to live to 63 years of age.

If we only we wouldn't live so damn long, like we used to in the good old days.

 

[OULobo]

I can't stand this. My father used to claim that men in these positions deserve these perks. He always claimed that these are things that draw men of good calibre to politics and that taking such things away allows the erosion of the moral structure of the lawmakers and therefore the laws of this country. He would even look at JFK and say that if he really did have an affair, that it was acceptable because men like him should be afforded such luxuries. (While I don't think his job makes adultery acceptable, I do think his personal life is just that, personal). I disagree and think that the legislature should be composed of a cross-section of the citizens. They should be average Joes, not average millionaires. Having money already used to mean that they would be less tempted to take bribes and kickbacks, but we now know that greed stretches even to the top. There is always more to be had. Our people should be represented by civil servants who want to speak for their constituents, not people looking to score a position as a public sponsored aristicrat.

The members of congress get many benefits over and above their already generous salary, like free travel expenses and transportation, free offices, free secrataries and assistants, free security and even free mail. Some even hold other jobs at the same time. I see nothing wrong with these benefits and don't even have a problem with how they are often beyond the needs required to perform the job (like first class or private flights, luxurious offices, ect.) I can't see giving them an excessive pension (in a time when pensions are almost unheardof). They should be afforded the same safety net and privilage of any other citizen and no more. There are many opportunities to make money with minimal effort just being a former member of the legislative branch, not to mention the contacts made being in Washington, like speaking engagments or promotion and most are already lawyers, teachers or administrators and take jobs in universities or at law firms. That pension plan is just another example of beauracratic back slapping when they should show some respect to the people and take a humble sum more appropriate for a civil servant.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The problem with Congress, in many ways, is us--our laziness, our unwillingness to look at reality, our insistence that members of legislatures pander to every nutball religious or political group that comes along, our unwillingness to insist on public financing of campaigns and nothing but. Fact is, most of these folks do pretty good jobs, but within the absurdity of a system that runs on money, money, money.

As for Social Security, despite the republicans, the system ain't broke. It runs surpluses---problem is, Reagan and to some extent Clinton and absolutely both Bushes have used the funding to "balance," budgets, and republicans with help from democrats have refused to make useful and necessary reforms.

Now the "reforms," they're talking about would dump literally trillions into the stock market--but hey, those guys are infinitely more trustworthy. I mean Enron, what's been happening in the mutual fund markets, accounting firms, etc., the "compensation," awarded the ex-head of the NYSE--hell, I'm perfectly confident that they'd handle things in a fashion that would ensure safe retirement for all Americans....aren't you?

 

[Nightingale]

Sorry, GD, but that post is dead wrong.

Claim: Members of Congress receive lavish pensions but are not required to contribute to the Social Security fund.
Status: False.


Origins: This
piece has been circulating on the Internet since April 2000. So much of it is outdated, inaccurate, or misleading, it's difficult to know where to begin.


It is not true that Congressmen do not pay into the Social Security fund. They pay into the fund just as most everyone else does.

It was true prior to 1984 that Congressmen did not pay into the Social Security fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), but that program was closed to government employees hired after 1983:

In 1983, P.L. [Public Law] 98-21 required Social Security coverage for federal civilian employees first hired after 1983 and closed the CSRS [Civil Service Retirement System] to new federal employees and Members of Congress. All incumbent Members of Congress were required to be covered by Social Security, regardless of when they entered Congress. Members who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security."

It is not true that Congressmen "continue to draw their same pay, until they die." The size of their pensions is determined by a number of factors (primarily length of service, but also when they joined Congress, their age at retirement, their salary, and the pension option they chose when they enrolled) and by law cannot exceed 80% of their salary at the time of their retirement.

The figures given as an example for Senator Bradley ($7,900,000 over the course of his and his wife's lifetime, culminating in a top payout of $275,000) are simply outrageous amounts with no basis in reality. There is no conceivable way Senator Bradley could draw anywhere near that amount of money though his pension plan.

It is not true that Congressmen "paid nothing in on any kind of retirement," and that their pension money "comes right out of the General Fund." Whether members of Congress participate in the older Civil Service Retirement System or the newer Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), their pensions are funded through a combination of general tax provisions and contributions from the participants. Right now, members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.

As of 1998, the average annuity for retired members of Congress was $50,616 for those who retired under CSRS and $46,908 for those who retired under FERS. Not bad, but not the highway robbery this piece makes it out to be.

SOURCE: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/pensions.htm