|
Post by ozark on Apr 25, 2009 21:02:17 GMT -5
I happen to be one of many hundred thousand who was injured while in the Army and when discharged was awarded service connected disability. So far, so good. But I and many thousand like remained in service to retire because of length of service. Here is what I feel is unfair, inconsiderate and a disgrace to fair treatment of Veterans. The amount of Service Connected Disability is deducted from my retirement check. Yes, read that again. I am paying myself disability out of my earned retirement benefits. Normally I am not a person to complain but in this case I wish that Americans who are paying taxes so the government can send out our checks would take a look at this in terms of fairness. I expect this will generate comments from others in the same shoes I wear but hopefully some intelligent forum member can explain the logic behind this. Ozark, Retired Army, Disabled Veteran, Drawing social security and soon to get a gift of $250.00 that I haven't earned and don't need or deserve. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by whyohe on Apr 26, 2009 5:33:05 GMT -5
Ozark, i think it is unfair too. i can not explain it either. what it appaling to me is is you and other vets get a 250.00 "gift" as a stimulas, thoes who have fought and got injured durng service and in defence of our country, and these banks and auto companies who made poor decisions get 700+ billion. one bank getting 170+ million alone!
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Apr 26, 2009 8:09:45 GMT -5
There's a lot of things about pay and taxes that make no sense. Ozark, when you get disability pay that comes from the VA and it, by law, is nontaxable. The fact that your disability is untaxed saves you from 20-30% of the amount or more, depending on your total income. I applied for disability for hearing loss, but they refused it saying the medical records showed my hearing loss was only partly a service connected disability since about half of it I had when I initially enlisted in the AF. That would have saved me about $600 per year had it been approved, even though they would deduct the disability amount from my military retirement.
When you figure out how to make any sense out of government pay and taxes, let the rest of us know. Why would the government pay you military pay or retirement and then tax the same thing they paid you? Just makes for more expensive paperwork on the part of both you and the government. Likewise your social security payments. They were promised by good old FDR to never be taxed, but Slick Willie pushed through legislation to tax it too, (but he made sure it was written so it would only start after he left office, conveniently blaming the next administration for it, which the democrats did with a vengeance in 2004). They give it to you with one hand and they take it away with the other. About the only thing that really makes sense is the AIG bailout. Why do you think they let other companies go belly up while they bailed out AIG with billions of your tax dollars? The answer is simple, it's because AIG insured congressional retirements. Two things help you understand about politicians. 1) Look only at what they do, never at what they say! 2) Follow the money trail and see who actually benefits!
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Apr 26, 2009 8:14:34 GMT -5
The only "logic" I can see is that the assumption is that had you NOT been disabled, you would have still gotten exactly what you are now getting in pension/retirement income. Therefore, being partially disabled (but not debilitating) while serving should not be a reason to increase your later pension income above that which others draw who were not disabled but who served equally. I don't agree with it, but I am GUESSING that is the 'logic'. If it were up to me, anyone who became partially disabled due to military activities, while in uniform, and who subsequently served the full term anyway, would get a percentage bonus above their normal retirement. For example, if you become 50% disabled while serving and yet you still serve your 20 or 30 years and retire, your retirement check would be 150% of what it would have been. The $250 that you mention is being paid to all Social Security recipients. The only reason is political. It's a slap in the face to all S.S. recipients. It won't buy a month's groceries. But the reasoning is apparently that "Gosh, we can't give out banks billions and not give S.S. recipients SOMETHING"...... So they are basically buying votes, is all I can figure. The Soc. Sec. 'fund' is going broke and they vote in a one time payment for no reason. The foxes are guarding the hen house. Look at it this way, Ozark. I'm a little more than a year away from being able to draw Soc. Sec., so I'm still working. Thus, think of the $250 as a gift from me to you!!! I'm paying for it, you're receiving it. Merry Christmas. (Ha. Actually, you are probably paying taxes on your social security --- another shameful scam --- and so YOU are probably paying yourself the $250 as much as I am). As for the vets, here's the system that SHOULD be in place. Military personnel and school teachers should be the highest paid people in the U.S., above doctors, or anyone. The benefits should be second to none. This should be done no matter what it costs. Then, those professions would naturally be filled with the best, the brightest, the absolute top people in America. The entrance criteria would be difficult, the waiting line very long. It's a crying shame that they are on the bottom, not the top, of the pay scale. Have you written your Congressman about this? They can't change it instantly, but they might consider changing the law for the next guy like you down the road. I'd write them myself about it, but they are like a lot of people I know and don't like what I write.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Apr 26, 2009 10:49:16 GMT -5
The system of Military retirees with Service connected disabilities having the disability pension deducted from their retirement pay has been brought before congress with both Republican and Democrat majorities but it has always been left as is. Changing it without awarding back pay for those of us who have been short changed for over forty years could perhaps be done someday. But look at my case. Over three hundred per month since 1969. That would pay for a pretty good Muzzle loader. Oh well, the bright side is that I get medicine for the pain by paying only a small co payment. My sympathy goes to young famlies who really have it tough. Me and my wife are wealthy in comparison and for us the Eagle squats and gives us enough to live on every month. Ozark.
|
|
|
Post by KerryB on Apr 30, 2009 8:40:01 GMT -5
The government will be treating me in a similar manner since i qualify for social security benefits as well as qualify for a municipal pension. I fall under the "Windfall Elimination Provision" that the government started many years ago which says that they can take around 60% of the Social Security benefit i have earned because i will be receiving a second retirement income from a source such as "local, state, or federal government" pensions. Now keep in mind that i worked long enough to receive my Social Security benefit...........i bought and paid for it, just like everyone else paying into Social Security. But because i tried to better myself by getting another job and earning another retirement income, they seem to feel they have the right to steal most of my Social Security benefit that i earned. My father was hit by the same logic because he earned a retirement benefit from the ICG railroad and then earned a separate retirement benefit from the State of Illinois as a law enforcement officer. They took over 60% of his railroad retirement benefit too! Tell me how any of this is fair? I assume the entire Social Security system would probably have collapsed by now and nobody would be receiving anything if they weren't stealing from guys like me and my father, so i do feel a little better when i think about it that way! But the corruption and mis-management that caused this whole problem is what i am really paying for and that makes me see red! Oh well, i should probably feel lucky that they are throwing me a few crumbs instead of taking all of my Social Security benefit? Guess i shouldn't say that too loud or that is just what they will do............................
|
|
|
Post by edge on Apr 30, 2009 9:42:07 GMT -5
IMO, on the same issue, why should only a few classes of workers be able to retire after 20 or 25 years? Why should the cops in NJ be able to get 1/2 pay after 25 years and not the school teacher, janitor or anyone in between! The whole system is screwed up. IMO, everyone whether they be a Public or Private worker should get their pay as a cash equivalent. Add up all of their benefits and that is their pay. Have an open system for retirement, health-care, etc. that anyone can buy into and get rid of all of the hidden garbage in the contracts. Make it open and above board so the voters know the true cost of their employees and give everyone the same opportunity to decide their own futures. All payments by companies and Governments need to be on a current basis so that retirees own their plan, and workers can switch jobs without loosing their pension plans. This would eliminate any question about whether you get paid or not....same rules for everyone! edge. OH, put elected workers on the same plan too
|
|
|
Post by minst7877 on Apr 30, 2009 10:54:42 GMT -5
IMO, on the same issue, why should only a few classes of workers be able to retire after 20 or 25 years? Why should the cops in NJ be able to get 1/2 pay after 25 years and not the school teacher, janitor or anyone in between! The whole system is screwed up. IMO, everyone whether they be a Public or Private worker should get their pay as a cash equivalent. Add up all of their benefits and that is their pay. Have an open system for retirement, health-care, etc. that anyone can buy into and get rid of all of the hidden garbage in the contracts. Make it open and above board so the voters know the true cost of their employees and give everyone the same opportunity to decide their own futures. All payments by companies and Governments need to be on a current basis so that retirees own their plan, and workers can switch jobs without loosing their pension plans. This would eliminate any question about whether you get paid or not....same rules for everyone! edge. OH, put elected workers on the same plan too Oh I agree totally with this but don't anyone hold your breath waiting to see it happen or you will be long dead and they will have everything that you thought you had. DC
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Apr 30, 2009 12:19:04 GMT -5
To pay workers in all fields cash and leave them responsible for getting health insurance and retirement funds would IMO be a mistake. Most would live high on the hog and end up old and disabled without any means of support. Wards of the state.
|
|
|
Post by edge on Apr 30, 2009 13:22:03 GMT -5
In our Nanny State I am sure that the Gov. would mandate some minimum level of APPROVED Healthcare plan.
Since Social Security is going broke they would also mandate that you at least invest in Treasury Securities that would enable you to retire at 70+ years of age.
edge.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Apr 30, 2009 17:03:25 GMT -5
It just occured to me that every time one of us old and useless dies it helps the Social Security system a little. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on May 3, 2009 9:36:44 GMT -5
IMO, on the same issue, why should only a few classes of workers be able to retire after 20 or 25 years? . . . . . . . . . . . . The whole system is screwed up. snip . . . . . . . . . All payments by companies and Governments need to be on a current basis so that retirees own their plan, and workers can switch jobs without loosing their pension plans. This would eliminate any question about whether you get paid or not....same rules for everyone! edge. OH, put elected workers on the same plan too And who do you think would administer such a plan? Those same elected representatives that have been put on it? Do you really think the ink will be dry on such a plan before they are altering it to their own warped advantage? That is how politicians buy power. They spend our money to pay off and enrich their supporters, themselves, and their cronys. That way they get rich, reelection is assured, and all is well for the whole world (at least the part of it they care about). Universally everything the government controls is going to be screwed up. That is simply the nature of government. Some politicians are overtly corrupt and want to slant things to their advantage. Some are well-intentioned busybodies that want to manage everyone else's life and we give them the power to demand we do whatever they say with the power of the law to insure compliance. For a system to work it must be simple and non-government involved. Unfortunately that means some individuals are so short-sighted they will not participate, but even that is better than government control. I have a retirement account from 9 years work at a local college. They put in up to 15% of my pay and I put in a matching amount. When I left there it was mine. That IRA took a big hit this year, but it is still a great program. It was invested in a program of my choice. The money once applied is not under the control of the employer, or union or the government. My IRA is mine and mine alone! I can use it as needed, leave it for when it is necessary or poof it off like a three year's old Halloween candy haul. I can move it from one investment to another and don't even have to pay taxes on it until I remove it for use. A program like that would be a great model, but it won't keep irresponsible individuals from using it to buy a Lexus and end up 84 and broke. Freedom means people must have the right to fail as well as to succeed. Socialism supposedly protects people from themselves, but all socialist systems ultimately fail. If there is no threat of failure for the individual, there is no incentive to succeed either.
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 3, 2009 17:21:06 GMT -5
And who do you think would administer such a plan? SNIP. If mandated as a replacement for the soon to be defunct SS System then probably that portion needs to be in Government obligations, IE: full faith and credit of the US. Optional amounts need to be in a Trust type account, owned by the individual...IMO. edge.
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on May 4, 2009 9:16:29 GMT -5
Edge, the cops and teachers and other workers have different pensions because that's what they chose. If they didn't want that, they should have chosen differently.
You have one word in your post that bothers me..... "mandate"...
I'd prefer that the government stay totally out of our pension and health care, 100%. Leave the world alone, already.
Even the few things that the government should be meddling in, they screw up by being inefficient and bad at. I don't want them doing much of anything, really.
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 4, 2009 9:37:05 GMT -5
Edge, the cops and teachers and other workers have different pensions because that's what they chose. If they didn't want that, they should have chosen differently. You have one word in your post that bothers me..... "mandate"... SNIP. RIGHT! You are telling me that the Cops all chose 25 and out but no Janitor wanted that?? I assume that was a joke ;D You seem to have MISSED the word that preceded "mandated"..... If edge.
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on May 4, 2009 9:53:34 GMT -5
No, the Cops didn't choose 25 and out...........and the janitor didn't choose something else.
But the humans chose to BE a cop or BE a janitor.
And I understand, and I saw the 'if'.....but I'm still unhappy with the fruition of that 'if'....I'm just giving my opinion that nothing should be mandated by any government that is so poor at running anything that they'd screw up folks' pensions like the screw up everything. Social Security is half-well-named.
|
|
|
Post by petev on May 4, 2009 10:15:05 GMT -5
In N.Y. cops, teachers, firemen, mailmen, DOT workers etc. can all retire in their 50's,and the benefits are unbeatable. The reason I haven't said much in reply to the original post in this thread, is that if government workers think they have it bad, what about self-employed people? No retirement, unless you stashed enough money away, health insurance that has become unobtainable for alot of individuals, etc. So that's my beef, what's yours?
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 4, 2009 12:29:30 GMT -5
Without government we would have no laws, no speed limits, no controls whatever. Kids would go to school if they wanted to and many would not. We would have no recourse if someone took our vehicle to work on it and ruined it. Poachers would run rampant over our property and we would have to protect everything with the gun. There are many things that I can complain about but after visiting a few other countries and compare how they are living with how we are blessed I guess I have to be proud of my Social Security check, My Military Check, My Medicare and my Tri-Care-For life health insurance. I guess that speed limits are a good thing and that I have a deed for my property with a government law saying others must let me control it. I even like the word mandate because it is mandated that I have certain freedoms and certain rights. These things are guarded by the policemen and the law enforcing agencies. I am glad that slumbugs cannot toss their trash out on our highways and along our streams. I guess I really don't have a beef. My memory isn't all that good but if it serves me right we are living in the best times I have seen during my long life time. I even accept Obama because my friends and neighbors choose him over John McCain and Hillery both. I am reminded of the child who grew to be seven years old before he ever uttered a word. One morning his mother accidently put salt in his cerial rather than sugar. He spit a mouthful out and said: "That stuff tastes like crap." Thrilled pink his Mom hugged him and said: "Oh, my darling has finally spoke. why have you waited so long?" "Up until this morning everything has been ok and there has been no need to complain." When we take a look at the whole package and compare it with other packages I can't see any big reasons for us to be dissatisfied with what we have. Happiness, peace of mind and contentment comes from within and not from locating all the faults in our country and eachother. I wish you all well. Ozark
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 4, 2009 12:36:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on May 4, 2009 12:51:34 GMT -5
Ozark, don't want to get into a long argument on it all......I understand what you are saying.
I admit that the concept of government works about as well as most other ideas for SOME things, like police, schools, prisons.
I don't agree that you have all the litany of things you listed solely because of government. That's how it's done NOW, yes. That doesn't have to be the way it's done. The same things could occur another way, a private way, in some cases.
You wouldn't have Social Security, but smart folks would have more retirement than they do now because they invested it themselves.
You'll always have slumbags tossing trash along highways and streams. Government hasn't seemed to slow that down any at al.
Poachers would not run rampant on property any more than they do now. One Game Warden per county hasn't slowed them down much, it seems to me.
Speed limits are a good thing in some places, not so much in others. But the same government that limits car velocities can limit your personal freedom. Let them do one thing because "it's a good thing" and they end up doing too much. Where do we draw the line? I am not sure, I admit. But it should be drawn, somewhere.
Are we better than other countries? Yes, better than most. Is life as good as it's been in years? Yes. But are either of those facts a good enough reason to sit content and not try to make it even better yet? Do we sit and accept life as it's fed to us? Or do we do what we can to make suggestions, changes, improvements, enhancements, where we find them???
I don't think it's a binary decision to believe life is good, or life is awful. I think life is just fine. I'm very happy. But I will always try to point out needed changes, errors in systems, and unfairness....much like the original post you made here about military retirement and disability. You say you enjoy having a retirement check and life is good.....yet you pointed out an inequity, and rightfully so.
That's all that the rest of us are doing, wherever we find them.
Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 4, 2009 13:17:38 GMT -5
Thanks edge, that was an interesting read. Whereever we happen to live in the world it is up to us to extract happiness from what we have to live with. I have witnessed happy people living in the depths of poverty and unhappy folks who were wealthy. Systems of governments cannot make its people happy. I have owned some fine automobiles that beat the Midel A Ford nine ways from sunday. But none ever made me as pleased or as happy to wobble down a dirt road fighting to keep it between the ditches.
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 4, 2009 13:26:40 GMT -5
Buffalo used to roam in herds that went from horizon to horizon.
Around the turn of the 20th century market hunters exterminated whole species because there were no limits! Woman wore lots of clothes with feathers and the flocks of Passenger Pigeons were said to have darkened the skies. HUNTERS, yes for profit drove them to extinction.
Governments tend to suck because people tend to suck!
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 4, 2009 18:33:49 GMT -5
It is not understood by me. I see right and wrong and I see things as good or bad for our country. What I cannot understand is why it has to be bad if it comes from a Republican and considered by a Democrat. Surely there are some good ideas in both parties. When a vote is passed with only two votes from a particular party it is obvious that politicians are serving their party rather than the people. I am aware that the elected officials are lawmakers but I think that they should be there to repeal a lot of undesirable laws. Regardless of who presents a bill the opposition party will be looking at who offered the bill rather than whether the bill is good or bad for us. I like lables such as right or wrong, good or bad. I dislike those like liberal, consersative, Democrat or Republican. If the timid beagle hound was called a Democrat it would be unwelcome on grounds owned by Republicans and visa versa. We the people have become the type that sucks. Edge is correct once again.
|
|
|
Post by petev on May 4, 2009 22:18:35 GMT -5
The article that Edge posted I found to be thought provoking. It probably is easy for us Americans to become isolated in our thinking and some fresh ideas to consider couldn't hurt.
|
|
|
Post by 161 on May 5, 2009 2:58:52 GMT -5
Edge The reason cops can retire at twenty five years of service is one because it is a high stress job. The average life expectancy after retirement is 3 to 5 years. Also there are a few cops who get promoted and go on to administration. Few who's health hold out well into their 60's plus. How many 63 year old men an women can physically endure fighting with 20 something dope heads? The workmen's comp claims would far out weigh the retirement benefits
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 5, 2009 5:25:46 GMT -5
161, this may offend you, but that is no reason that "regular" folks can't retire early too!
Also, IMO that is not really very true! Many of my friends are cops and retired years ago....zero have died!
It is just their Union that has negotiated this.....the more that retire the more there are, the more there are the more the dues are!
I am not saying that they should not be able to retire in their 40's, but the janitor and the Teacher, and the member of the road crew, etc. should have that option too.
edge.
|
|
|
Post by 161 on May 5, 2009 14:38:30 GMT -5
edge OK maybe I didn't explain myself completely. Here in Iowa we have IPERS for public employees. Law enforcement pay in at a higher rate, out of our own check so we can retire sooner. Corrections pay in an even higher rate. And no you have not offended me except for the comment about Unions. I have never been a union member and never will be. ;D I'm glad your friend have lived long enough to enjoy their retirement but they are the exception not the norm. Just wondering did they retire in their 50s or 60s? My old Sheriff retired at 61 an died 1year 1 week later.
|
|
|
Post by 161 on May 5, 2009 14:54:46 GMT -5
Another point I need to make is I could retire a 56. But like everybody else I'll work until at least 65 because of health insurance. And I don't want to make anybody think I don't want a school janitor to retire early my brother was one. He died at 53 and didn't enjoy his IPERS at all. Also I take pride that I feel I am "regular" folks. The day I forget that is the day I need to find new work.
|
|
|
Post by ozark on May 5, 2009 15:11:34 GMT -5
Drawing 50 percent of your pay after 20-25 years does mean that things gets better in you early 40. It does not mean you have enough income to trade your work gloves for a fishing rod. If a person has any ambition or gumption worth a hill of beans they will not want to start the process of dying while in their forties. After 20 years in the Army I needed a change which often is as good as a rest. I took the retirement and begin preparing myself for another carreer of work. I opened a gun repair shop, went to school to become a automotive repairman, opened a auto repair shop and then I was asked to teach at a Vocational school. I did that a couple of years and returned to my auto repair business. I then got offered a job at the local bank wearing a gun to scare robbers away. Did that for seven years and then took a job as a dispatcher at the County Sheriffs office. From there I returned to teaching because they opened a vo-tech school two blocks from where I live. I finally took Social Security at age 62 but soon found myself as the County Veterans Service Officer. After a few years of that I decided that I would hang it up. I mention all this to show that retiring while in your early 40s doesn't mean quiting the work world. First, the income is to low to live at the standards we feel we are capable of achieving. Next, golfing, hunting, fishing, coonhunting and whittling gets old after a short time when you are young. I didn't realize I liked to work or that I needed to work to feel I was doing my share for the family, country or my own peace of mind. My point of his long rambling history of my working days is to point out that when we give it all up death is likely to take us out soon. For our health and happiness we need to be involved in life and doing our part to make ourselves productive. What I did I would not change a thing if I had the choice to make again. I have made it from Herbert Hoover through the first 100 days of Obama and it has been a great road to travel. Sorry for the long post. Ozark.
|
|
|
Post by edge on May 5, 2009 20:28:44 GMT -5
edge OK maybe I didn't explain myself completely. Here in Iowa we have IPERS for public employees. Law enforcement pay in at a higher rate, out of our own check so we can retire sooner. Corrections pay in an even higher rate. SNIP OK, that is all fine, BUT and it is big! Can the Janitor pay in at your rate and retire in 25 years if HE wants to? I bet he is NOT allowed, and that would not be fair....which is the purpose of this thread! My friend retired at 45. I was there when he got sworn in @ 20 and in NJ he could not buy his own handgun since he was not 21 ;D edge.
|
|