NNN0LHI
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-10 10:20 AM
Original message |
Something from this thread caught my eye and I have a question? |
|
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=76892>>>RECOMMENDATION 5.8: COVER NEWLY HIRED STATE AND LOCAL WORKERS AFTER 2020<<< Aren't State and Local workers covered under SS and Medicare right now? Anyone know more about this? Don
|
Davis_X_Machina
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-10 10:33 AM
Response to Original message |
1. All state & municipal workers are covered under Medicare.. |
|
...but many are not covered by SS.
I don't pay SS, but do pay Medicare, out of FICA, e.g.
|
NNN0LHI
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-10 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Thank you. That explains a lot |
|
I have been wondering why the fleabagger state and local workers who live around here have never shown any interest in protecting the manufacturing jobs that are used to fund SS. But when you mention cutting property taxes to them they turn as white as ghosts and try to change the subject. Losing those manufacturing jobs and FICA funding along with those jobs doesn't directly effect them. But when my property taxes quadruple they try and humor me and say that is alright, look at all the fine services you are getting. Yea, for them its alright.
Yes, Sir. That does explain a whole lot. Thanks for taking the time to tell me how this stuff really works.
Don
|
PoliticAverse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-10 10:51 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Not all state and local workers are covered by Social Security. |
|
Approximately 25% of state and local government workers aren't covered by Social Security. http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/stateandlocal.htmhttp://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10051.html
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-10 11:04 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Colorado state workers aren't covered |
|
Some years back the new workers started to pay in to Medicare. But I was hired in '76 and never paid into either program. We have PERA, our retirement association.
I would have been for paying in to Social Security but we didn't have the choice. The state was simply exempted and that was that.
|
spartan61
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. As a retired teacher from CT, I also was not |
|
able to pay into SS. The CT state workers do get SS, however, with some very fine benefits like reimbursement for their Medicare each month. Those of us who were unable to pay into SS toward our retirement and now have Medicare will be paying $115.50 each month for it. The reason given is our medicare payments are not deducted from our SS checks. Hello, we can't get SS because we were not allowed to pay into it. Our retirement (which we paid 7% into) is connected to the SS COLA so we also haven't had a C of L raise in 2 years, but our medicare went from $96.40 to $110.50 to $115.50 while the SS recipients Medicare payments remain the same. Why is no one complaining about this?
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. We haven't received a COLA either |
|
Not last year and we don't anticipate one this coming March.
I'll be 65 next year. My research indicates that I'll be paying way more than you for Medicare. I forget which Part we have to pay for but I understand that buying in will cost me hundreds of dollars and that includes the supplemental from PERA. I'll learn more by mid year. But what I found out a few years ago was that it will cost me about $400 a month for the buy-in plus the supplemental.
|
spartan61
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. The $115.50 per monthfor Medicare doesn't include |
|
my supplemental insurance. For that I'm paying $200 per month. I'm not complaining because I have health insurance when there are so many who don't have it.
|
AldebTX
(739 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-29-10 11:15 AM
Response to Original message |
5. It depends on When you were Hired |
|
I was hired in 84 and I am NOT covered by Social Security or Medicare. To do this our municipality had to provide us with a retirement program and medical coverage after employment for life (at a small cost).
Sometime in the early 90's they began requiring new hires to pay and be covered by medicare.
When Bush JR came to office in 2000 the requirement to provide medical care after age 65 for non-covered employees was dropped. So many of us have no medical coverage after age 65. The other thing is they will not let us start paying into medicare and earn quarters, unless every employee opts in, that is not covere. (some of the more conservative...no taxes types won't opt in and many are covered from other jobs). Fortunately for myself, when I hired on I signed a contract with the municipality that they would buy me in to medicare at 65 if I had not earned enough quarters from other jobs.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:34 PM
Response to Original message |