Insurence scare

beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Well, it all depends on whether you contributed to SS or not. If you did, and you have your quarters, then you should qualify. If you didn't then, would not qualify.
How does the RR get off not paying for SS? I know the fed employees do, but I get that since it would be double dipping if they got civil service and SS.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/394376/insurence-scare/20#post_3510320
Well, it all depends on whether you contributed to SS or not. If you did, and you have your quarters, then you should qualify. If you didn't then, would not qualify.
How does the RR get off not paying for SS? I know the fed employees do, but I get that since it would be double dipping if they got civil service and SS.
Fed employees have had to participate in SS since the 1980's. RR and some unions aren't required to BUT even if you have quarters in you have to pick one or the other. SS wont pay off if you have the pension. Now that I think of it a friend in MT was on a railroad pension and told me the same thing, they would reduce the benefit paid so you only get what you would be entitled to from the RR so there isn't a point to doing it. If you have a pension but at the same time you also paid into SS then you can draw both.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
My question is why would that apply to the RR? Especially if employees are actually contributing to SS?
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/394376/insurence-scare/20#post_3510341
My question is why would that apply to the RR? Especially if employees are actually contributing to SS?
We don't contribute anything to SS, the RR is a separate entity. The railroad retirement board receives a portion of our pay to put towards our retirement annuity. After 10 years, any money that was paid into SS from a previous job, is transferred to the RRB. If we don't keep the RR job, and go back to a job that pays into SS, then the money paid into the RRB converts to SS. If a person has contributed, lets say 8 years on the RR and becomes disabled..that person can choose which place they will go to for their retirement funds. RRB pays more than SS, so most would choose to collect from the RRB.
I have worked for the RR all my adult life, I never paid anything into SS, except the 5 or 6 months I worked at Taco Bell...that money was turned over to the RRB many years ago. My mother however worked at a job that paid into SS for 22 yrs, and then went to work for the RR... she was with the RR 16yrs, all money was transferred from SS to the RRB. when she was ready to retire, she had a choice from which one she would draw her retirement funds...RRB paid more, so she went with them.
So you can only collect from one or the other...many years ago a person could collect from both the RRB and SS, but as the years passed, they worked out the method I stated above. Now SS is trying to convince the RRB to be all combined. The RRB doesn't want to do that because SS pays out to people who never worked. RRB only pays out to people and the family (survivors after death) that did contribute.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Wasn't it because the RR came up with retirement before the rest of us got SSI?
Acutally there are others today that may not have paided into SSI; Farmers, Teachers...
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/394376/insurence-scare/20#post_3510367
I guess that was at the crux of my question.
Oh, I see what you are saying...This is my understanding:
SS was set up to make sure people had something to live on when they are too old to work. If a company is willing to create a retirement fund that is 100% untouchable until retirement, and all money is solely for that purpose, then they can set something up according to government guidelines. The railroad retirement board, that's all they do, just like the SS office. there is a tier 1 and a tier 2...one of the "tier" is money those still working contribute and the other "tier" is money the worker put in themselves. While I worked I paid out my butt almost 3xs more than what is taken out for SS. I had no say in the matter....it's a mandatory government deduction, just like SS, but more is taken out and therefore more is paid out.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
People in a union that uses PEERS don't contribute to social security. My cousin who works for a city and sister who works for a school district are in it.
I've always thought everyone should be forced into SS if anyone is.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/394376/insurence-scare/20#post_3510372
Oh, I see what you are saying...This is my understanding:
SS was set up to make sure people had something to live on when they are too old to work. If a company is willing to create a retirement fund that is 100% untouchable until retirement, and all money is solely for that purpose, then they can set something up according to government guidelines. The railroad retirement board, that's all they do, just like the SS office. there is a tier 1 and a tier 2...one of the "tier" is money those still working contribute and the other "tier" is money the worker put in themselves. While I worked I paid out my butt almost 3xs more than what is taken out for SS. I had no say in the matter....it's a mandatory government deduction, just like SS, but more is taken out and therefore more is paid out.
I agree it's valid according to government guidelines but it still isn't fair to everyone else that is forced to contribute.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/394376/insurence-scare/20#post_3510385
I agree it's valid according to government guidelines but it still isn't fair to everyone else that is forced to contribute.
We were "forced" to contribute more money....
I don't see any unfairness. You can have SS hold out more if you want, and it's untouchable until you retire. Most folks want to pay less to SS and keep the money in their pocket.
There are people who made quite a bit more money than I did working...their SS annuity is higher than my railroad benefits...You only get out what you put in.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/394376/insurence-scare/20#post_3510393
We were "forced" to contribute more money....
I don't see any unfairness. You can have SS hold out more if you want, and it's untouchable until you retire. Most folks want to pay less to SS and keep the money in their pocket.
There are people who made quite a bit more money than I did working...their SS annuity is higher than my railroad benefits...You only get out what you put in.
If Social Security were only for retirement then you would be correct.
Social Security is also for the disabled and for survivors. Retirement benefits is just one piece of Social Security. If one of your kids, God fobid, were disabled or lost a parent then they would collect Social Security even if you didn't contribute. The rest of us pay for that.
SS will not withhold more, not that I know of. It's 6.2% of the first $113,700 of income for those of us not working for big unions and 12.4% for self employed. No more, no less.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
I'm guessing that if you die, the underage children would also be able to claim against the parents RR retirement, right? As well as the spouse of a deceased person under the RR plan?
Kids that do not have a parent that contributes to SS will never see one dime of SS money if the parent dies until they earn in to the SS system.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
I'm not sure that's true Beth. I believe if the child is disabled then they receive SSI once they turn 18 even if the parents never contributed.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/394376/insurence-scare/20#post_3510422
I'm guessing that if you die, the underage children would also be able to claim against the parents RR retirement, right? As well as the spouse of a deceased person under the RR plan?
Kids that do not have a parent that contributes to SS will never see one dime of SS money if the parent dies until they earn in to the SS system.
My brother in law died and had 2 minor children, they was able to collect SS until they turned 18. One son was 17, so that was one year, the other was only one, so he collected 17 years. Still, what was paid out was no where near what the man put in. The rest SS got to keep. He was unmarried, so I don't know if a wife could collect.
If a railroad worker dies, that money comes from the RRB. My mother collects from my fathers RRB funds, and will until the money he contributed is gone, as money dwindles from my fathers account, they increase what they give to my mother, so that she never takes a cut in her benefits.
As for the SS paying out to the disabled of parents that don't pay in...I never thought about it. I know the RR insurance pays out for the children as long as the parents work, but as adults I'm sure they get all kinds of help from the government.
Doesn't the government have a fund from our taxes paid out to disabled adults who have never contributed? Why would they use SS money to pay for that? If the SS you pay in for your retirement is not just for retirement, then the SS people sanctioned from the government, is misappropriating funds. On the other hand, if the government contributes (and I think they do) funds for that purpose, then what you pay into SS is not for the other people, but just for the retirement section of it.
RRB is just that...railroad retirement board. They don't get help from the government to pay out to the people. The same section that you pay into SS, is what the RR takes for the same purpose. So while SS covers a blanket of different areas, you personally are not paying into all those areas. I do remember a big investigation a few years back because the retirement section was being dipped into to pay for other areas it wasn't meant to. Than the next thing you know, the government is cutting funds to welfare and disability recipients. Remember that big to-do here on the site where we talked about how much the government pays out for people who never worked a day in their lives...that money didn't come from your contribution to SS. A large portion of OUR taxes do..... RR workers pay taxes just like all the other working folks.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, I know that destitute children can receive SSI, but so can anyone who is disabled, elderly, and destitute. I was referring to the SS income paid in by contributing members, vs the RR. I am sure that the RR runs the same, meaning that widows and underage children would get RR money if the contributing member dies.
No one gets SSI unless they are destitute (making less then the SSI amt) and disabled or elderly. Just because you are a kid and destitute, does not mean you will get SSI. SSI is strictly for disabled and/or elderly.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/394376/insurence-scare/20#post_3510470
Yes, I know that destitute children can receive SSI, but so can anyone who is disabled, elderly, and destitute. I was referring to the SS income paid in by contributing members, vs the RR. I am sure that the RR runs the same, meaning that widows and underage children would get RR money if the contributing member dies.
No one gets SSI unless they are destitute (making less then the SSI amt) and disabled or elderly. Just because you are a kid and destitute, does not mean you will get SSI. SSI is strictly for disabled and/or elderly.
Comment deleted...I misunderstood your whole post and answered myself, asking the same question a different way.
I need coffee
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Actually, I was responding to Bang Guy's comments about SSI. LOL
Not sure what comment you were referring to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top