Federal Retirement Question

[Patri]

More power to that man. He will probably live to 100.

 

[EZ-ED]

Prior to 1983 civil servants were able to retire with both a CCRS retirement and SS if they had 40 quarters of SS earning. CCRS starting in 1983 eliminated federal retirees from receiving SS and a civil service retirement even if you qualified for SS. It was called the Windfall Elimination Provision and referred to as WEP. WEP was just recently overturned by congress. FERS started the same year I believe and civil servants paid into SS so were able to collect a Federal Employees Retirement System retirement or FERS and SS. Prior to the current environment as long as an employee received acceptable performance ratings I don't recall any mandatory retirement age except what I list below.

As to mandatory retirement, Law enforcement after 20 years of service (retirement available) or age 50 with five years of service (mandatory).
Air Traffic Controllers cannot be hired past 31st birthday and mandatory retirement at 56.
I believe the military has some restrictions but I'm not familiar with such.

 

[MrockStar]

Prior to 1983 civil servants were able to retire with both a CCRS retirement and SS if they had 40 quarters of SS earning. CCRS starting in 1983 eliminated federal retirees from receiving SS and a civil service retirement even if you qualified for SS. It was called the Windfall Elimination Provision and referred to as WEP. WEP was just recently overturned by congress. FERS started the same year I believe and civil servants paid into SS so were able to collect a Federal Employees Retirement System retirement or FERS and SS. Prior to the current environment as long as an employee received acceptable performance ratings I don't recall any mandatory retirement age except what I list below.

As to mandatory retirement, Law enforcement after 20 years of service (retirement available) or age 50 with five years of service (mandatory).
Air Traffic Controllers cannot be hired past 31st birthday and mandatory retirement at 56.
I believe the military has some restrictions but I'm not familiar with such.

Navy 22 to 24 years, Airforce 33 Airguard 33- to age 60 re-evaluated each year if in critical job/AFSC.

 

[b2bailey]

He is a postal worker - they have a gov't pension, plus SS and great health insurance. He can probably afford to retire.

My parents were in the same boat - virtually no savings. Sold their co-op, put a down payment on a condo in FL and lived on his gov't pension and SS.

I don't know if it has changed, but my father collected postal pension but did not qualify for social security.

 

[joestein]

In some cases I think they do. There was a Post Office & State Liquor Store in a small city we use to drive through on our way up into the mountains. It was a mom & pop operation. Then the grocery stores lobbied to sell liquor and all of the grocery stores in WA are able to sell liquor. The little liquor store / Post Office closed.

Bill

I wasnt aware that the Post Office use outside contractors.

 

[joestein]

Prior to 1983 civil servants were able to retire with both a CCRS retirement and SS if they had 40 quarters of SS earning. CCRS starting in 1983 eliminated federal retirees from receiving SS and a civil service retirement even if you qualified for SS. It was called the Windfall Elimination Provision and referred to as WEP. WEP was just recently overturned by congress. FERS started the same year I believe and civil servants paid into SS so were able to collect a Federal Employees Retirement System retirement or FERS and SS. Prior to the current environment as long as an employee received acceptable performance ratings I don't recall any mandatory retirement age except what I list below.

As to mandatory retirement, Law enforcement after 20 years of service (retirement available) or age 50 with five years of service (mandatory).
Air Traffic Controllers cannot be hired past 31st birthday and mandatory retirement at 56.
I believe the military has some restrictions but I'm not familiar with such.

The WEP didn't stop people from receiving pensions and SS. What it did is reduce SS to stop people from unfairly enriching themselves from SS.

If you paid into SS for 30 or 35 years, the WEP didn't apply at all.

The WEP reduced SS to people who had gov't pensions who paid SS for shorter periods like 10 years. For Example a person who average wage over their lifetime is $50K gets $X of SS. A person who averages $100K over their lifetimes doesn't get $2X - they get something like $1.3X. That is becauase the SS payout is progressive - the more you make, the smaller the incremental increase in your SS.

So, if a guy works 10 years in private and makes $100K/YR. Then finished off his career with the gov't and earns a pension. When Averaging out his salary over 30 years - the average is now $33K. The Payments on $33K are MUCH higher than 1/3 of what would be earned on $100K. That is what the WEP was supposed to stop.

That is why we shouldn't have gotten rid of it.


ALSO... My father joined the SEC in the mid 1970s and retired in 1995 at 75. He got the full gov't pension and full SS - as he had enough SS quarters not to be affected by WEP. However, he did not reach the full gov't pension - maybe got 1/2 way. His army stint during WWII went towards calculating his pension benefit - which helped.

 

[Rolltydr]

The WEP didn't stop people from receiving pensions and SS. What it did is reduce SS to stop people from unfairly enriching themselves from SS.

I’m sorry, but nobody is “enriching” themselves with SS! My wife worked in the federal government for 30 years, the last 20 as a federal law enforcement officer in the FERS system. As a result, she was not entitled to any of my SS benefits, although I paid into the system for 40 years. Any other spouse, retiring from any other job, regardless of pension, would have been entitled to that. We are a middle income family and, yes, we both receive a pension from our past employers. Now, my wife, as best we know at this point as she just filed a week ago, may receive about $1,500/month from my SS. That will help pay groceries and gas, which will probably be increasing significantly over the next four years. It definitely will not be enriching us!

 

[vacation911]

I say good for him. He must have his reasons, and maybe he likes his job. Someone else may not like it but I am going to guess and hope he does.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

They say that the key to long life is keeping busy. If this is a way for this man to stay active (not my preference but I respect his choice), and he can get some spending money (and continue to pay taxes) I am all for it.

 

[easyrider]

They say that the key to long life is keeping busy. If this is a way for this man to stay active (not my preference but I respect his choice), and he can get some spending money (and continue to pay taxes) I am all for it.

I agree 100% in the staying busy doing something productive and something you like being a path to a longer life. I've seen the results.

Bill

 

[joestein]

I’m sorry, but nobody is “enriching” themselves with SS! My wife worked in the federal government for 30 years, the last 20 as a federal law enforcement officer in the FERS system. As a result, she was not entitled to any of my SS benefits, although I paid into the system for 40 years. Any other spouse, retiring from any other job, regardless of pension, would have been entitled to that. We are a middle income family and, yes, we both receive a pension from our past employers. Now, my wife, as best we know at this point as she just filed a week ago, may receive about $1,500/month from my SS. That will help pay groceries and gas, which will probably be increasing significantly over the next four years. It definitely will not be enriching us!

Maybe enriching themselves is the wrong word, but I meant by getting payments larger than they deserve due to the progressive nature of SS payment calculations.

As for the spousal provision - I wasn't aware of that. I think the GPO affected spouses.

BUT.... I still stand by the reason why the WEP went into effect and think it should have stayed in effect. Someone who earned 100K for 10 years deserves a SS that is based upon 100K for 10 years out of 35, not $29K in earnings for 35 years.

 

[easyrider]

Maybe enriching themselves is the wrong word, but I meant by getting payments larger than they deserve due to the progressive nature of SS payment calculations.

As for the spousal provision - I wasn't aware of that. I think the GPO affected spouses.

BUT.... I still stand by the reason why the WEP went into effect and think it should have stayed in effect. Someone who earned 100K for 10 years deserves a SS that is based upon 100K for 10 years out of 35, not $29K in earnings for 35 years.

You have to remember that the rules are purposely created to be so complex that no one really understands the entire regulation. Social Security has over 20,000 pages of rules. I doubt that any one working the phone or counter at SS has read all of them and if they had read all of them I doubt they really understand them.

I'm happy that these spouses are going to receive SS. I'm not happy about all of the real fraud in SS that has allegedly been discovered.

Bill

 

[joestein]

You have to remember that the rules are purposely created to be so complex that no one really understands the entire regulation. Social Security has over 20,000 pages of rules. I doubt that any one working the phone or counter at SS has read all of them and if they had read all of them I doubt they really understand them.

I'm happy that these spouses are going to receive SS. I'm not happy about all of the real fraud in SS that has allegedly been discovered.

Bill

I am not sure if I agree, but in my opinion there should be NO SPOUSAL SS - except for right of survivorship.

SS is going broke as is. Maybe if we stopped giving it out to people who didn't pay in, it wouldn't be going broke. Especially with the numbers of working people shrinking.

Of course no politician wants to get behind paying less in SS, but we have to realistic about funding.

 

[Brett]

You have to remember that the rules are purposely created to be so complex that no one really understands the entire regulation. Social Security has over 20,000 pages of rules. I doubt that any one working the phone or counter at SS has read all of them and if they had read all of them I doubt they really understand them.

I'm happy that these spouses are going to receive SS. I'm not happy about all of the real fraud in SS that has allegedly been discovered.

Bill

"real fraud" .... allegedly

 

[easyrider]

"real fraud" .... allegedly

View attachment 107216

Hey Brett, you are on that razor edge of being a bit political. Until something is proven it is just an allegation is what I think we both agree on.

Bill

 

[DrQ]

"real fraud" .... allegedly

The problem with the young (and some oldsters) is that they don't know what they don't know.

 

[Rolltydr]

I am not sure if I agree, but in my opinion there should be NO SPOUSAL SS - except for right of survivorship.

SS is going broke as is. Maybe if we stopped giving it out to people who didn't pay in, it wouldn't be going broke. Especially with the numbers of working people shrinking.

Of course no politician wants to get behind paying less in SS, but we have to realistic about funding.

One effective fix would be eliminating the cap!

 

[HitchHiker71]

You have to remember that the rules are purposely created to be so complex that no one really understands the entire regulation. Social Security has over 20,000 pages of rules. I doubt that any one working the phone or counter at SS has read all of them and if they had read all of them I doubt they really understand them.

This is why we need AI to answer these questions - AI does know all 20k pages of rules - and can consistently provide answers encompassing ALL of the rules - every time - without fail. Why rely on humans that are inconsistent and provide incorrect answers despite their best efforts. Hopefully this is where we're going to modernize the ridiculously out of date systems still in use today for SSA/SSI and many other systems.

I'm happy that these spouses are going to receive SS. I'm not happy about all of the real fraud in SS that has allegedly been discovered.

Bill

Get your popcorn out - it's going to be fun watching this all unfold!

 

[HitchHiker71]

I am not sure if I agree, but in my opinion there should be NO SPOUSAL SS - except for right of survivorship.

SS is going broke as is. Maybe if we stopped giving it out to people who didn't pay in, it wouldn't be going broke. Especially with the numbers of working people shrinking.

Of course no politician wants to get behind paying less in SS, but we have to realistic about funding.

IMHO we need to move toward personal retirement accounts - no more redistribution programs like we have today that are always ripe for manipulation and theft. We can create and maintain personal retirement accounts without privatizing the SSA/SSI system.

 

[HitchHiker71]

"real fraud" .... allegedly

View attachment 107216

Musk never actually said this in reality. What he's saying is that the system is and has been ripe for WFA as a result. For example, those SSNs can be utilized downstream for WFA in Medicare/Medicaid and many other downstream systems - which is why having these SSNs removed/archived from the active SSA/SSI system needs to be resolved.