Fairness and Equality

[Jogeephus]

Yesterday I was asked to read over some social security paperwork for someone who was very upset with the information they had received in the mail. I ended up making them very mad with understanding of the letter and the opinion I voiced. I'd like to see what if I was out of line with this or not.

Person A worked for the state for a number of years and did not have to pay into social security because they had their own pension plan and were exempt from social security tax. Person A was also married to someone for over 10 years but decided the grass was greener on the other side of the fence and divorced their spouse. Their spouse never remarried and died some 20 years ago and Person A was able to collect the spouses social security check which amounted to around $1000 a month. In addition to this person A collected $865 a month from their government pension making their total income work out to $1865/month.

The recent letter from the social security states that since Person A is already receiving a government pension from their own retirement plan that of their spouses will be reduced by 66% or $666 leaving person A only $334 from SS but a total combined income of $1199/month. Person A was livid about this. I explained that it is not that terrible since IF Person A had worked in the private sector there is no percentage and it is deducted dollar for dollar which would have meant Person A would have $865 deducted from the social security check leaving only a third or $135/month or a total of only $1000/month so in a way Person A is doing better than the average tax payer by $199/month. I also pointed out that Person A was lucky that their spouse stayed single for over 20 years else this payment would have had to have been split.

Anyhow, Person A didn't like my take on the what the papers explain but it got me to thinking - is this really fair? Not so much for Person A but for the taxpayer to be treated with different math than a government employee.

 

[HDRider]

No, it is not fair, but,,,, they want a handout.

Sounds like a walmart shopper with an EBT card in Louisiana.

 

[Dave]

I would like to know how they are entitled to any portion of SS from a spouse that they divorced.

 

[john250]

I've got nothing about your original question but the general observation that govt. treats it's employees awfully well.
Pensions and "pension fairness" is going to be the political issue of the next 50 yrs.
Cities, countys and states have promised benefits which cannot be paid. i.e. Detroit. i.e. Illinois and California.
The pressure is going to land heavy on the guys with the printing press.
A worker in Detroit could legitimately argue that he we was in good standing with his bosses and he is entitled to get the pension his union negotiated (legally) for him/her. Clearly, the worker isn't going to get 100% of that pension, but...

 

[boondocks]

Did Spouse A remarry? I'm not an expert but thought the only way you can get a portion of an Ex's SS benefit is if you were married over 10 yrs and didn't remarry.
The rationale was to give a small stipend to someone who may have been, eg, a homemaker for years and otherwise would be destitute when elderly.
I'm wondering whether the letter indicated the amount was being changed because A was newly getting income from the state plan ( ie, this isn't any change in the law, just his/her circumstances had changed, or maybe it was incorrectly calculated before ?)

 

[3waycross]

Did Spouse A remarry? I'm not an expert but thought the only way you can get a portion of an Ex's SS benefit is if you were married over 10 yrs and didn't remarry.
The rationale was to give a small stipend to someone who may have been, eg, a homemaker for years and otherwise would be destitute when elderly.
I'm wondering whether the letter indicated the amount was being changed because A was newly getting income from the state plan ( ie, this isn't any change in the law, just his/her circumstances had changed, or maybe it was incorrectly calculated before ?)

did you actually read Jo's post?

 

[TexasBred]

I would like to know how they are entitled to any portion of SS from a spouse that they divorced.

Dave just shows that a man keeps paying an "x" even after he's in the grave. :???:

 

[Jogeephus]

Boondocks, Spouse A did remarry but not long enough to reap the SS benefits of this person. Like you said, and as it was explained in the SS letter, the intent was to take care of the stay at home spouse who chose to be a homemaker and not a bread winner. I can understand this logic and think this is fair but what gets me is how and why is someone's social security benefit reduced by 100% if both worked in the private sector and only 66% if they worked for the government. This doesn't seem fair to me that either should be treated any different. Seems like there are two standards when we all should be treated equally. At least with this change it will cut down on some of the double dipping that's been going on.JMO

What got A made with me was I suggested that they look on the bright side and see they are still coming out better than the average citizen even with the cut.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Jo, the only thing consistent today is the inconsistency.

The law that has been labelled the biggest tax ever on American Citizens has been handled very similarly when government employees were not subjected to it, and on top of that, certain corporations were arbitrarily handed immunity from it. At least the SS tax law was written with the language of immunity. The one I'm referring to was "taken care of" after the fact. What is the difference between giving government employees a leg up over private citizens vs giving particular companies or sectors tax breaks or guaranteed loans?

There is no justice or fairness in our system when laws are not equally applied to all people. A major problem is that few realize that though the favoritism may benefit you today, tomorrow it may be the ruin of you.