Soc Security Rant

[AprilWhine]

But back to the original post, the problem seems to be that the line between SSDI and welfare is almost non existent any more. Political parties have stirred up the sheeple by beating the drum of welfare fraud and thinly disguised xenophobia. It has worked to the point where states have thinned the welfare rolls by kicking off people who can't work. Those people who are basically unemployable have to do something so they head for the Social Security office and try to qualify for SSDI.

 

This situation is going to bankrupt the SSDI program and will probably affect regular Social Security. We as a society need to have a heart when it comes to our needy members and go back to funding welfare to provide for a minimal existence. It's a poor reflection on us if we vote to allow someone to starve in the streets when we can afford to keep them in food and housed.

 

In my opinion, it doesn't matter if someone can't or won't work, I still don't want to let them starve.

[Jack Mayer]

Personally, I feel this thread has come to a conclusion. There is no useful information being conveyed...only personal opinion. And they are not RV oriented. And some of them are simply inflammatory. I'm moving on.....

[Vladimir]

Vladimir... you might want to explain that, since you were a Federal Civil Service employee before 1984 you were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and would not have contributed to Social Security. Your $140 a month comes from some other employment where you would have contributed to SS.

 

CSRS retirement does qualify for Medicare, however.

 

And I suspect you get more from the CSRS than you'd get if you had originally been in SS (or employed after 1984).

 

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/fedgovees.htm

 

WDR

 

 

Correct. Nobody needs to hurry and send a donation for my retirement.

 

However, it is ALWAYS a good idea to talk to people in their 20's about the need to plan for retirement early. That $140 check really makes an impression on them.

 

I did enjoy my adventure with the Social Security office. As someone that worked "inside" government I did know how it would turn out. So it was easy to keep laughing throughout the whole process.

 

However, I have always wondered has anybody said OK and walked out without claiming their benefits???

[Barbaraok]

Personally, I feel this thread has come to a conclusion. There is no useful information being conveyed...only personal opinion. And they are not RV oriented. And some of them are simply inflammatory. I'm moving on.....

How many RVers are on disability? I think there are probably a larger percentage than any of us realize, and might be able to function very well for 35 minutes or maybe a couple of hours but can't work anymore. I know several and to different degrees it limits what they can do around their RVs, but their disability means that they can enjoy at least some of their lives before they die. How would anyone of us feel if we were receiving disability income, just arrived at a park, met a few people, be invited to a social hour and then hear the comments about those on disability we've seen in this thread.

 

Barb

[R. Walter]

 

Besides, why not apply for SS online instead of going into an office?

If you had read my post you would have known that I wasn't there to apply, but rather to schedule an appointment to determine what my retirement options might be by meeting in-person with one of our public servants who works for SSA, just like SSA recommends.

[bigjim]

"by my estimate....I guess these people......none of them looked to me" The real point is there are no known facts here. Every detail could be exactly right but we have no evidence. I think in court a lawyer might say we are trying to base our judgement based on facts not in evidence. I flat don't know for sure one way or the other but I am going to pay attention and I am not going to automatically believe what some politician says on the radio even NPR which I like. Now days I believe you have to have a SS number for all infants above a pretty young age and you have to provide it on your income tax form. Who can truly say why everyone was there unless the individuals themselves told why they were there. We all know the old deal about assume and it doesn't make common sense to make an ass out of u and me by jumping to conclusions. Vlads story was pretty good except for the part he left out and I don't like that it went that way for him. It is hard to understand how that happens but I doubt it is exactly the same everywhere and there may or may not be reasons. I agree it is a good idea to try and educate the younger generation if they will let us. I believe in recent years there have been staffing shortages in lots of government agencies that cause big problems for us the customers Even the IRS has taken a hit which is likely to cause a lot cheats to slip past.

 

I wish we had someone here worked and retired in the SS offices that could actually explain some of this stuff so we would have actual facts but I sure wouldn't blame them if they didn't want to get involved.

[Pat & Pete]

.

[DuffMan]

In a perfect world only those that truly need assistance would apply and all that need assistance would receive all they need provided by a benevolent society.

Unfortunately, in the real world, we are restrained by budgets.

If I have 1000 people clamoring for assistance and funding only available for 500 what am I, as an agency head, supposed to do. If I make some judgment calls as to true need, my detractors will pull out the Race Card, The Class Warfare card or the plain Mean Spirited card. So I establish a mind numbing set of bureaucratic rules and qualifications that only a lawyer could understand. I keep making them more obscure and difficult to comply with until the number of claimants matches the funding available to me. No one can then claim discrimination.

Unfortunately only the most persistent & those that have the foresight to engage legal assistance get the assistance available and those may well not be the most needy.

However, from a bureaucratic standpoint, I met my agency budget and cannot be criticized for discriminating against any protected class.

If anyone has a better idea, there is a Legislature that would love to hear some valid ideas on how to identify the truly needy.

[lasttruck]

If you had read my post you would have known that I wasn't there to apply, but rather to schedule an appointment to determine what my retirement options might be by meeting in-person with one of our public servants who works for SSA, just like SSA recommends.

That you did. My apologies.

[Vladimir]

. Vlads story was pretty good except for the part he left out and I don't like that it went that way for him. It is hard to understand how that happens but I doubt it is exactly the same everywhere and there may or may not be reasons.

 

My posting was about the local Social Security office experience. I really did not want to get into a discussion of the old CSRS retirement system under the Federal Government.

 

All Federal employees that retired under the OLD retirement plan nowadays get WEPT. That is their Social Security is reduced by 60% since Social Security gives a "bonus" for low wage retirees. And since the pre-1984 Federal employees did not pay into Social Security under their Federal employment they "look" like low wage employees. So my Social Security benefit is based on my earnings outside of Federal employment and since I am a federal retiree they are further reduced by 60%.

 

I don't have an issue with the amount of my Social Security.

 

My issue was the "interview" and process with Social Security.

 

I worked for the Federal Government. I told the front desk, if people were complaining and they could not explain an issue to the public they were just to call me.

 

As I Federal employee I worked for the public. They paid for my professional expertise. I had an obligation to explain government policies and the rationale for government decisions to the public. I did not have to agree with them, nor they had to agree with me. BUT I did have an obligation to the public to EXPLAIN to them WHY.

 

The really said part is that interview with Social Security went EXACTLY like I described it. I actually had a few more questions like my payments into the Canadian Social Insurance system and how that affected my Social Security. Like I said, I wanted an appointment because I knew I had a complicated application.

 

And it is sad that any member of the public would get that level of service from a Federal agency. Fortunately, for me I had a pretty good understanding of my retirement rights under Social Security. It really was the only reason I was able to keep my sense of humor through the process.

[Biker56]

If you had read my post you would have known that I wasn't there to apply, but rather to schedule an appointment to determine what my retirement options might be by meeting in-person with one of our public servants who works for SSA, just like SSA recommends.

What you can do On Line with SSA & SSI

[vermilye]

One other point when going to the SS office - remember to leave your Leatherman in the car - I thought the guard was going to draw on me the first time I stopped in with it on my belt...

 

Actually, our office here in a fairly small town is not all that difficult to deal with. I've never wasted more than 2 minutes to get to the "Explain what you want to do" window, a 10 minutes for a sit down with a clerk.

[marspec2003]

Quote

All Federal employees that retired under the OLD retirement plan nowadays get WEPT. That is their Social Security is reduced by 60% since Social Security gives a "bonus" for low wage retirees. And since the pre-1984 Federal employees did not pay into Social Security under their Federal employment they "look" like low wage employees. So my Social Security benefit is based on my earnings outside of Federal employment and since I am a federal retiree they are further reduced by 60%

 

 

Not completely accurate. The SS reduction for Federal Employees under CRS is based on the number of years that you worked under SS. If you had 30+ years of SS earnings there would be no reduction in your SS. I had 28 years under SS and 25 years under CRS. My SS was reduced by approx. 5 per cent.

[richfaa]

We have no problem with SS or the service.. Wife and I are both under the Fed CSRS but have enough SS credits to draw SS. wife has been applying. SS offices are very understaffed it took over a hour on hold before a person answered the phone. You can go to the SS website and apply on line. SS suffered under the sequestrations act. I had no problem applying for mine as I did most of it on line but yes a visit to the local SS office was a nightmare . Few employees many applicants. My SS is reduced .The total monthly benefits are 253.00 per month less fed tax and Medicare premium's. MY CSRS pension provides us with a good lifestyle and the SS buys a couple tanks of Diesel fuel.

[whj469]

I have a co-worker who wanted to go to the SS office even after she was told that she could enroll and plan online.

When she got there and after waiting for some length of time, they sat her down at a computer and she enrolled online.

You can also talk to them on the phone to ask questions but I don't know how long you must be on hold before they answer.

You can go the one of their websites and plan to see how much you will get now or some time in the future. I find that very helpful.

I wouldn't go to the SS office unless I had to. Good Luck

[R. Walter]

 

I wouldn't go to the SS office unless I had to. Good Luck

 

My wife's and my retirement situation is, perhaps, a bit more complicated than the average retiree's. She is a pre-84 federal retirement participant with the pre-84 part having been in the DC City Government; currently she's got quite a few years with USFS and DHS. I've been in the private sector my whole work life. Her work history with DC City Government is what is mucking up the works due to the poor recordkeeping by the District of Columbia. This is why we were advised by SSA in several telephone calls to make an in-person apt with SSA.

 

Believe me, I've been on the SSA website many times, I know what my projected SS benefit is. I've talked on the telephone with SSA at least three (3) times. I don't want to go to the SS office any more than I absolutely must, especially given the experience I had that I described in my first post.

[Jimalberta]

Well R. Walter...welcome to the mean end of this forum. Rants dont work because someone will always find a way to jump down your throat. Been there.... ...as a matter of fact one thread I started became a personal attack to the point where I had the admin people delete the thread. Most of the mean people hide behind a benevolent attitude but in reality you hit a sore nerve in their own life and pissed them off by making them defensive.

A bit of advice...just move on .....its not worth it. Mean spirited people will never change.

[bigjim]

Rwalter, it seems this post is much different than your 1st. More about your problems with SS than judgemental of others. I get that you were frustrated the first time. I never heard of the problem dealing with the DC situation so I find that informative and I wish I had some good advice for you. I first had to deal with SS so long ago I don't even remember when it was exactly. They notified me to come in for an interview and told me what to bring. I may have been lucky and got someone knowledgeable, friendly, helpful and couteous. You know how it can go that sometimes you get someone like that or you may get just the opposite. When I was pushed out of my job with the army I had one woman that was nice but never did anything. I got a warning from another person in that office to be watchful. At the end the one was on leave and the one that had warned me ended up doing it all and very well. As she finished up all my stuff and correctly she happened to mention that it was her last day as she was being forced out under a RIF (reduction in force) I should have gone out and bought a lottery ticket.

 

I didn't even know you could do so much with SS on line until recently. In fact I have heard several public service announcements on the radio and tv in the last month or so. I did not know how to do anything on a computer back when I went out and didn't learn anything until about 2002. I am sure there are plenty of people who still can't or if they do it could only happen if they had somewhere like a library to go online. I don't know how long it would take to do it on line but libraries usually have a time limit. I just remembered that one reason I had to go in in person was to show some orginal and some certified documents. I will say if you had just looked at me you would not have a clue that I have any medical issue. I am 67+ today and you still couldn't tell by looking.

 

Not that it is relevent but I was vested in the federal system as a split CSRS/Fers retiree so I have an offset from SS. I worked enough outside work to qualify for I think it was 120 quarters of SS by the time I was forced out medically (civilian) with 27 years with the feds. I even had 1 quarter of SS while working for the Circus. I was about 2 weeks shy of 47.

[R. Walter]

A bit of advice...just move on .....its not worth it. Mean spirited people will never change.

 

Okay. Good advice. Thanks.

[ajs]

Been a lot of what I would consider judgmental statements about people under normal retirement age using Social Security. I would have quoted some of them to drive home my point but since this is going to be my first post of this forum decided to restrain myself a little bit. I have to admit that two years ago I would have silently agreed with many of what I am calling the judgmental statements I have read on this thread. Recent events in my life have opened my eyes (so to speak) and for better or worse I can’t keep silent without at least sharing my personal experience that might at least give some of you something to think about.

 

Nearly two years ago I was involved in a motor vehicle accident. After nearly a week in ICU and three surgeries I am still far from fully recovered. Before the accident I figured I would never be collecting Social Security Disability. I had a good job and income lived below my means, had zero debt and a good savings in the bank. I also had disability insurance that I bought through my employer (payroll deduction.) I had paid for the disability insurance for over 27 years and had never needed to make a claim. Long story short, I have been unable to work and am still unable to return to my prior job. I am physically pushing myself every day (read painful) in an attempt to get myself in good enough physical shape to gain that all important medical release. Financially it had not been easy but we are getting by okay. Zero debt and savings had helped but the biggest factor in getting by has been my LTD (long term disability) insurance. I had paid my premiums those 27 years just in case something like this happened so I did not feel guilty when I received my benefit checks.

 

Enough of my background and on to my story. About 6 months ago I receive notification from my LTD provider that they were setting me up with a company that’s sole business is assisting people in filing Social Security disability claims. If I don’t cooperate with the company and file for SSD then my LTD benefits stop. (it is buried in the fine print of the policy) Any SSD that I get will reduce my LTD benefits by an equal amount. So I personally have nothing to gain by getting a SSD benefit since my LTD benefits (that I paid for these 27 years) will be reduced by any SSD that I get other than if I don’t play along, then the LTD company can (and will) stop my benefits that I paid for. Long story short, I became one of those people that collected SSD benefits. Not by choice but I was pushed into it by my LTD company. I would rather not collect SSD (and cost the tax payers money) and just collect my full LTD benefits that I already paid for and thought would keep me from having to collect SSD. From what I have been able to find out, it is very common for private insurance companies to compel people to apply for SSD so that they can save money by paying less benefits once the person gets SSD. Basically they are getting Social Security to cover a major cost of their business. I am really upset and angry that LTD company would basically force me into SSD and am feel that if SSD really wants to save money they need to look into finding a way that disability insurance companies can no longer do what they are doing to me.

 

So yes, I am under 62 and am receiving SSD. Not by choice but I am. (I had bought LTD insurance thinking that if something did happen I would not have to be a burden on the government) So before you judge someone on SSD, I suggest you know the whole story.

[defboater]

So yes, I am under 62 and am receiving SSD. Not by choice but I am. (I had bought LTD insurance thinking that if something did happen I would not have to be a burden on the government) So before you judge someone on SSD, I suggest you know the whole story.

 

 

Well stated, thank you for your contribution. Stay strong and good luck in your healing.

[ed6713]

Apply on-line.

Neither my wife nor I have ever been to a SS office. Never found a need.

[HighwayRanger]

Kind of reminds me of those who can judge the speed of a moving vehicle with their "radar eyes".

 

 

Estimating a moving vehicle's speed is easy........

 

And a ton of people game the system to receive federal, state, and local benefits.....

[folivier]

KittyCat no one begrudges you collecting SSDI. That is what it is for. If I weren't retired I would probably be on longterm disability or SSDI due to the vertigo and herniated disc and other issues. Please don't feel bad about being on SSDI. You deserve it and obviously paid for it over the years. I think what people including me are upset about are the number of people who game the system and increase the expenses for everyone else. And in certain fora if you make that statement you will be labeled as a racist, right wing, Christian, tea partier. But these are badges I hold proudly.

[ajs]

I think what people including me are upset about are the number of people who game the system and increase the expenses for everyone else.

 

What really upsets me beyond the individual people that "game the system" are the so called legitimate insurance companies that are basically using Social Security to subsidize their business expenses by forcing people who have legitimate claims to apply for SSD against their will to just save the insurance company money. (See post #45) It would not suprise me at all if those costs exceed the cost of individual people that get SSD that really should not recieve it. (I have no way of knowing, just guessing) How come you rarely hear people complaining about that?