ssdi/ui/pension/tra-taa

[LdiJ]

The pension is not coming from Hostess. It is likely coming from the Central States Pension Fund. The employer made all contributions and the employee did not pay taxes on the pension benefit. If you read the aforementioned publication it is clear it is not all inclusive. I am not saying you are wrong LdiJ, I am just not in agreement you are necessarily right. After reading the publication, I am going to withdraw to the fence an sit.

You are completely wrong. Whether the pension comes from Hostess or from the Central State Pension Fund the OP's situation would not apply to the publication you cited. A pension fund from a private company, even if it goes to a central fund, or union fund, does not apply.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You are completely wrong. Whether the pension comes from Hostess or from the Central State Pension Fund the OP's situation would not apply to the publication you cited. A pension fund from a private company, even if it goes to a central fund, or union fund, does not apply.

Please understand I am not specifically saying your interpretation is wrong, but can you show me where in statute, the info is that establishes it to be correct is?

 

[LdiJ]

Please understand I am not specifically saying your interpretation is wrong, but can you show me where in statute, the info is that establishes it to be correct is?

No..I will not do so. The pub is clear and what I described is a well known fact. Its not even slightly open for interpretation. Anybody else reading that pub wouldn't have a single question.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

No..I will not do so. The pub is clear and what I described is a well known fact. Its not even slightly open for interpretation. Anybody else reading that pub wouldn't have a single question.

You asked me to substantiate it and I did. I am simply asking you to substantiate your interpretation. Feel free to get defensive, when you cannot prove your position. It is clear the publication says it does not cover all instances. It is clear it does not only cite government employment, but transportation industry employment. You have done this in the past.

 

[LdiJ]

You asked me to substantiate it and I did. I am simply asking you to substantiate your interpretation. Feel free to get defensive, when you cannot prove your position. It is clear the publication says it does not cover all instances. It is clear it does not only cite government employment, but transportation industry employment. You have done this in the past.

No, I didn't ask you to substantiate anything. I asked you to link me to the information so that I could read it myself. I didn't even have to read the pub because I know exactly what that pub is. Its a basic tool in my industry. OHR this is as basic as it gets. As I said, its not open for interpretation at all.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

No, I didn't ask you to substantiate anything. I asked you to link me to the information so that I could read it myself. I didn't even have to read the pub because I know exactly what that pub is. Its a basic tool in my industry. OHR this is as basic as it gets. As I said, its not open for interpretation at all.

You claim things like this often and are proven wrong, by others doing the legwork.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Give it up Dude...you totally got it wrong and you are just making yourself look more and more foolish.

Supply proof of your position.

 

[csi7]

Where you are approved for SSDI (social security disability), yet allowed to continue to receive unemployment benefits, is due to the way your ability to be gainfully employed is affected by your acknowledged disability. However, your paperwork, medical evidence, your timeline may be specific and it is very important to keep track of all your paperwork, communications, and evaluations through out the entire time.

I was approved for SSDI after a hearing in front of administrative law judge. I had received long-term unemployment benefits because I continued to search for work with acknowledgement of my disability, and the paperwork to confirm this job search. I was allowed to keep my unemployment benefits without any loss.

This particular forum is based for legal opinions, which means that if you keep to statements that can be proven, you will receive the help in answering the legal questions. I use a different forum to help me cope with my disability, and I use this one to keep me in the real world.

When you get into the retraining classes, and the legal requirements for those with acknowledged disabilities, there adds another layer to what can be applied to individual situations legally. This is definitely not a one size fits all solution.

 

[Onderzoek]

I am familiar with that publication and it has absolutely nothing to do with OP's situation. There are organizations, some police departments, some firefighters, career military and other professions where the employees do not pay into social security but rather their pension replaces social security to one extent or another. In those instances they do not earn separate social security credits on their wages, and social security is not withheld from their wages. Therefore people in those professions who have not earned social security credits from other employment, either before or after those careers, would not be eligible for SSDI or regular SS benefits.

In other words, existing SSDI benefits would NOT reduce because they began to collect those pensions. Any SSDI benefits would be based solely on their earnings credits from before or after the other career.

Railroad employees have a mixture of Social Security and pension.

Someone receiving a pension from a wholly private company, like Hostess, would not fall under that publication. Since SSDI is not means tested, another pension would not reduce SSDI benefits...although its likely that someone receiving a private company pension would have already been switched from SSDI to regular SS benefits anyway.

I agree with this post.

Some employees still do not pay FICA taxes. Those are considered non-covered wages. State and local government, school districts are the most common. Heck, under the old CSRS pension plan, Social Security employees (and other federal employees) did not pay FICA taxes on their wages and did not qualify for Social Security benefits, just CSRS. That changed in the 80's. Most of these non-covered government employees do pay Medicare taxes, however, and can qualify for Medicare at age 65 or 24 months after entitlement to disability. Those are called Medicare Qualified Government Employees. Filing for that is a choice.

If a person has covered and non-covered wages (multiple employees in their lifetimes), the method of computing their retirement benefit is not the same as everyone else. There is a Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) that results in a lower monthly benefit for any person entitled to a non-covered pension. This provision, of course, seems unfair to those subject to it because they paid the same FICA taxes as everyone else, but don't get the same monthly benefit for the same taxes paid. Most people also don't realize that the Social Security benefit computation is weighted for lower lifetime wage earners. There are 'bendpoints' and a tier system that provided ever decreasing return in your monthly benefit computation (Primary Insurance Amount - PIA) as your lifetime earnings increase.

I doubt Hostess employees were exempt from FICA. Their wages were covered. Therefore, there is no WEP and there never is a reduction in SSDI for pension benefits, only worker's comp and public disability.


http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/wep.htm

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/piaformula.html

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Your links does not shed more light on the subject. Nor do they directly address the effects of a multi-employer pension fund, where workers were not taxed for, nor did they contribute to, a pension benefit.

 

[Onderzoek]

Your links does not shed more light on the subject. Nor do they directly address the effects of a multi-employer pension fund, where workers were not taxed for, nor did they contribute to, a pension benefit.

You are not going to find a link for a law or policy that does not exist. There is no law that states that a pension from covered employment (regardless of who contributed) will offset or reduce SSDI or Social Security Retirement benefits.

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300605300

Surely, if there was such a policy, there would be some law or official policy somewhere. Just look at these chapters; SSA has policy about minutia, so why isn't there something to back up your allegation?

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0301901010
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/subchapterlist!openview&restricttocategory=03015