|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Claim: Members of Congress receive lavish pensions but are not required to
contribute to the Social Security fund.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2000]
Something to think about. So that those who don't know, may.
Our Senators and Congressmen don't pay in to Social Security, and, of
course, they don't collect from it.
The reason is that they have a special retirement plan that they voted for
themselves many years ago. For all practical purposes, it works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw their same pay, until they die,
except that it may be increased from time to time, by cost of living
adjustments.
For instance, former Senator Bradley, and his wife, may be expected to draw
$7,900,000, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000 during the last year of her
life. This is calculated on an average life span for each.
This would be well and good, except that they paid nothing in on any kind of
retirement, and neither does any other Senator or Congressman.
This fine retirement comes right out of the General Fund: our tax money.
While we who pay for it all, draw an average of $1000/month from Social
Security.
Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so desirable
that people would have extra pay deducted so that they could increase their
own personal retirement income. A retirement plan that works so well, that
Railroad employees, Postal Workers, and others who aren't in it, would
clamor to get in.
That is how good Social Security could be, if only one small change were
made. That change is to jerk the Golden Fleece retirement out from under the
Senators and Congressmen, and put them in Social Security with the rest of
us. Then watch how fast they fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe one or some of them along the way,
might be able to help.
How many can YOU send it to?
Nothing is worth more than this day
Variations: In May 2001 someone thought to combine the "Congressmen don't
pay into Social Security" alerts with an existing screed about the Clintons
charging the Secret Service rent by adding the following to the e-mail
quoted above:
[Collected on the Internet, 2001]
Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, thanks to the infinite
wisdom of New York State voters, now comes under this Congressional
Retirement Plan.
Talking about the Clinton's, it's common knowledge that, in order for her to
establish NYS residency, they purchased a million + house in upscale
Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense. Now, they are entitled to Secret Service
protection for life. Still makes sense.
Here is where it becomes interesting!! A residency had to be built in order
to house the Secret Service agents. The Clinton's now charge the Secret
Service rent for the use of said residence and that rent is just about equal
to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the
Clinton's mortgage and it's all perfectly legal.
You gotta luv it. Is Everybody Happy?????????
A debunking of that addition can be found on our Landlord of Misrule page.
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 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.
Additional information:
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Willaims [mailto:robinwilliams15@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:30 AM
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Social Security
One more time. . .
Elections are coming up in November
SOCIAL SECURITY: (This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our
Senators and Congressmen do not pay into Social Security
and, of course, they do not collect from it. Social Security benefits were
not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they
should have a special plan for themselves.
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),
with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. 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 $1,000 per month after retirement. In other words, we would have
to get benefits for 68 years and one (l) month to equal Bradley's
benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
And that change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement
Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the
Social Security plan with the rest of us and then 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.
How many people can YOU send this to?
|