Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Federal Retirees


For those approaching retirement as well as the currently already retired, here is a forum to share ideas and thoughts and exchange questions and answers.


To read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues visit FederalDaily.com.

To maximize your retirement, we also suggest you read "Retired Federal Employees Almanac".


(Reminder: soliciting of services is not allowed on this site.)

7 Pages<12345>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
freeageless  
#41 Posted : Friday, November 21, 2014 1:23:56 PM(UTC)
freeageless

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/20/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,411

Thanks: 9 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Clarification: Who is the attorney handling the case?
Taxes-101  
#42 Posted : Friday, November 21, 2014 5:31:35 PM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Law firm handling the case:

Carrell Blanton Ferris - Attorneys at Law; Richmond, VA
Attorney: Michael Donner: See www carrellblanton com
email: mdonner @ carrellblanton com
Put the dots and spacing as they should be.

Should be an exciting case... and those that participate will be on a contingency basis for the past three years refund.
Taxes-101  
#43 Posted : Saturday, November 22, 2014 7:59:56 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
On the Date the COMPLAINT IS FILED WITH THE COURT (Dec 5, 2014 - approx.) a PRESS RELEASE Will be issued to the Media and others. I will paste in that Press Release here on Federal Soup Bulletin Board. It will also be on the website www csrstax com (you have to fix the spacing).

It's best to have as many sign up to the case at it substantiates interest as viewed by the courts. This discrimination issue has National Implications as 16 to 22 states do the same thing. Attorney's email mdonner @ carrellblanton com (fix the spacing and add the dots).
Taxes-101  
#44 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2014 6:43:01 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Count Down to FILING THE COMPLAINT with THE COURT:
T minus 11 DAYS and counting!!!
Dunleyg  
#45 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2014 10:12:15 AM(UTC)

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 111

Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Even with a strong case, it will be hard.

The Supreme Court is currently deciding if 2 different states can tax the same income. It seems Maryland taxes residents on their income, even though they paid income taxes to the state where the income was earned. To me, it seems wrong, and is a open and shut case. Its hard to say which way the court will be decide, and some of the SC justices voiced they not have a problem with "double" taxation. If the Maryland case is debatable, a case like Virginia "unfairly" taxing pensions, will be even harder.


http://www.nationalrevie...e-will-they-get-it-wrong
freeageless  
#46 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2014 10:48:25 AM(UTC)
freeageless

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/20/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,411

Thanks: 9 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Nothing ventured-nothing gained.
Taxes-101  
#47 Posted : Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:13:16 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Post # 45; Dunleyg
Thanks for your comments. Yes, we are very aware that it will be tough. TO CLARIFY… Virginia is unfairly taxing CSRS pensions. But more importantly, it is unlawfully taxing CSRS pensions. It’s not a court of “fairness.” At the very least, it should be interesting.

Post # 46; Freeageless
“Nothing ventured-nothing gained”… GOOD ONE!! : )
Taxes-101  
#48 Posted : Monday, December 1, 2014 9:20:52 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Filing with the court may be pushed out to December 15th or so.
In the big scheme of things... insignificant.

Current CSRS retirees should be getting excited about possibly getting back $3,000 (on ave.) of their past three years Virginia Income Taxes paid. We do need as many as possible to sign on as participates in the law suit. It creates "significance" of issue as viewed by the courts. email the attorney: mdonner@carrellblanton.com. It's all on contingency.... You can't lose.
Taxes-101  
#49 Posted : Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:39:11 PM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Update on filing with the Court:

Attorney now telling me the filing will be early in the week of December 9,10,11, 2014!!
Great ready for the fireworks!!!
Taxes-101  
#50 Posted : Monday, December 15, 2014 5:30:15 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Update on filing with the Court.
Revised to December 23, 2014!!

The Complaint is going thru several Drafts.
Taking more time than anticipated.
Complaint filing with the Court now planned for December 23, 2014!!
A Christmas present for the State! : )
Taxes-101  
#51 Posted : Monday, December 22, 2014 11:10:54 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
We're still working the Complaint!
First draft was not ready for Prime Time.
So it's being reworked. Yeah... I am anxious too!
But I've been working this issue for 3 years.
3 weeks is comparatively "nothing!!"
Keep the faith... hopefully the State will get a "Christmas Present!"
Taxes-101  
#52 Posted : Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:41:07 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Another minor Delay.
But, We're still working the Complaint!
First draft was not ready for Prime Time.
I am anxious too, but can't file until it's ready!
But I've been working this issue for 3 years.
Another week is nothing. I've updated the website to indicate Dec 31 (csrstax.com)
Keep the faith... hopefully the State will get a "Christmas Present!"
seabeedeb  
#53 Posted : Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:51:36 AM(UTC)

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/21/2006(UTC)
Posts: 85

Was thanked: 12 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Hi Taxes-101,

It was interesting to read your posts about this tax issue. I did a little research on 4 USC 111, and I have a question about how you are applying it to Social Security benefits.

Does your interpretation of 4 USC 111 depend on Social Security benefits being the legal equivalent of pension benefits for tax purposes? Since Social Security is an insurance program, not a pension system, I'm not sure if they will be considered the same.

This is what I see as one of the main differences between private or public pension systems and the Social Security insurance program (assuming no survivors to keep it simple):

If you contribute to a pension system, you can choose to opt out of that system and get your contributions back. If you die before you begin collecting your pension benefits, your contributions are refunded to your beneficiary.

However, if you buy insurance and don't use it, you do not get your premium payments back. This is how Social Security works. The payroll deductions for Social Security are labeled OASDI, for Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance. If you die before you start collecting SS benefits, your payroll taxes are not refunded to a beneficiary because those taxes are considered insurance premiums, not pension (or investment) contributions.

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision for Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989), it says civil service retirement benefits represent deferred compensation for service to the Government, and thus are considered pay or compensation under 4 USC 111. Since this isn't true for Social Security benefits, I'm not sure if the statute will apply.

So there's another interpretation of the statute for your consideration. Thanks for the updates about your case, I'll be interested to see how it turns out.

Deb

Taxes-101  
#54 Posted : Saturday, December 27, 2014 9:46:19 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Response to #53
Deb

Deb, great posting and good questions! You are obviously a thinker! The issue is by no means simplistic. I'll try to answer each of your points.


1. Does your interpretation of 4 USC 111 depend on Social Security benefits being the legal equivalent of pension benefits for tax purposes? Since Social Security is an insurance program, not a pension system, I'm not sure if they will be considered the same.
ANSWER: Essentially YES. You have to go back to the history of Social Security (created in 1935). It was VERY controversial at the time (like Obamacare today but even more controversial). The issue the administration had at the time was how to "sell it" to the public. Two points were used... "Let's call it and label it insurance... everybody likes insurance don't they?" And... the cost will be only 1% of pay (the bean counters told the president that eventually that will have to be increased 600%). So that "called and labeled it insurance." But it meets all the definitions of a "Defined pension Plan." What it is labeled is irrelavent... Obamacare was created under the "Affordable Healthcare Act"... It's not "affordable"... same mis-labeling (how to sell it).

2. If you contribute to a pension system, you can choose to opt out of that system and get your contributions back. If you die before you begin collecting your pension benefits, your contributions are refunded to your beneficiary.
RESPONSE: Makes no difference. The state may exempt taxes on that labeling, but the Fed Taxes it!!

3. However, if you buy insurance and don't use it, you do not get your premium payments back. This is how Social Security works. The payroll deductions for Social Security are labeled OASDI, for Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance. If you die before you start collecting SS benefits, your payroll taxes are not refunded to a beneficiary because those taxes are considered insurance premiums, not pension (or investment) contributions.
RESPONSE: Social Security is a pension system masquerading as insurance. Actually more accurately it's a Ponzi scheme.

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision for Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989), it says civil service retirement benefits represent deferred compensation for service to the Government, and thus are considered pay or compensation under 4 USC 111. Since this isn't true for Social Security benefits, I'm not sure if the statute will apply.
RESPONSE... FERS, VRS, CSRS, SSS (Social Security Sys) all work essentially in the same way. The fact that you do or don't get a refund is a mere nuisance of the systems.

COMMENT: It will not be easy nor simple. But the Complaint will go to the courts next week (Dec 29 - Jan 2). At the very least, it will be entertaining.

freeageless  
#55 Posted : Saturday, December 27, 2014 1:09:58 PM(UTC)
freeageless

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/20/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,411

Thanks: 9 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Quote from Taxes101 "Social Security is a pension system masquerading as insurance. Actually more accurately it's a Ponzi scheme."


Taxes101, How can Social Security be a Ponzi scheme? The payments are guaranteed by the government. Every Ponzi scheme that I have heard of has been where the payments have been guaranteed by someone other than the U.S. government.

Edited by user Saturday, December 27, 2014 1:12:55 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

someoldguy  
#56 Posted : Saturday, December 27, 2014 2:12:43 PM(UTC)
someoldguy

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2013(UTC)
Posts: 4,245

Thanks: 320 times
Was thanked: 945 time(s) in 794 post(s)
Originally Posted by: freeageless Go to Quoted Post
Every Ponzi scheme that I have heard of has been where the payments have been guaranteed by someone other than the U.S. government.


Just as a Ponzi scheme has its early investors paid off by new investors, Social Security has its payments guaranteed by future generations of taxpayers. Some would argue this is why we need immigration "reform" to get more people into the system, at least as payees, to keep the scheme going as long as possible.

There is no "Social Security Trust Fund" or "lock box." Everything is being paid by payroll taxes from current earners to current retirees. When the number of retirees exceeds the number of earners, then Mr and Mrs Taxpayer step in.

If you think the US Government is guaranteeing Social Security payments just look in the mirror to see what the USG looks like. And just to show I am someone with an interest in receiving Social Security, just note that I call myself---

"someoldguy"

DISCLAIMER: You read it on an open internet forum :)
freeageless  
#57 Posted : Saturday, December 27, 2014 4:14:01 PM(UTC)
freeageless

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/20/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,411

Thanks: 9 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Originally Posted by: someoldguy Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: freeageless Go to Quoted Post
Every Ponzi scheme that I have heard of has been where the payments have been guaranteed by someone other than the U.S. government.


Just as a Ponzi scheme has its early investors paid off by new investors, Social Security has its payments guaranteed by future generations of taxpayers. Some would argue this is why we need immigration "reform" to get more people into the system, at least as payees, to keep the scheme going as long as possible.

There is no "Social Security Trust Fund" or "lock box." Everything is being paid by payroll taxes from current earners to current retirees. When the number of retirees exceeds the number of earners, then Mr and Mrs Taxpayer step in.

If you think the US Government is guaranteeing Social Security payments just look in the mirror to see what the USG looks like. And just to show I am someone with an interest in receiving Social Security, just note that I call myself---

"someoldguy"



So, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer step in and guarantee the Social Security Payments. What is wrong with that, and how does that make it a Ponzi scheme?? A Ponzi scheme it seems to me is where the person loses money unlawfully, and in many instances the money is not refunded back as promised. By your own implied admission Social Security is guaranteed by Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer-whom I assume is the U.S. Government. Are you trying to make some kind of Teaparty argument?

Taxes-101  
#58 Posted : Sunday, December 28, 2014 9:14:53 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
POST # 57 Freeageless...

Someoldguy has it right!
However, the Ponzi Scheme comment was just a comment about the status and mis-management of the system over decades. It's not part of the legal case in any way.

HOWEVER... just for info, Social Security was intended to support itself. When the system was created in 1935 there were 16 workers paying into the system for each 1 receiving benefits. That's now down to 4 workers for each 1 getting benefits. And in 12 years or so, will be 2 workers for each 1 getting benefits. Currently (2014) the system pays out more than it takes in. The system has also "greatly expanded" it's benefits since it's creation in 1935... with 367+ changes to the law since then! In theory, the SS Fund has a balance of 2+ Trillion. But that's merely a book keeping exercise that indicates, "If we managed it, and if we actually collected interest on investments that were real" we would have that amount. Yes the Fed guarantees it. But the Fed has no money either. But they do have a printing press, and they'll print the money which will come back as inflation.

There is a lot more to this. But we don't want to begin it being heard by the court here. and we are not going to give the state a "copy of our homework!"
thanks 1 user thanked Taxes-101 for this useful post.
freeageless on 12/28/2014(UTC)
Taxes-101  
#59 Posted : Sunday, December 28, 2014 9:18:52 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 74

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
SeebeeDeb

Please email me using the posted website email address (www.csrstax.com)
You may be an attorney with Social Security, or the state of Virginia.
If you have good ideas, I'd like to hear them. If your with the state, you can't copy our homework!! : )
freeageless  
#60 Posted : Sunday, December 28, 2014 10:00:55 AM(UTC)
freeageless

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/20/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,411

Thanks: 9 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Taxes-101 Go to Quoted Post
POST # 57 Freeageless...

Someoldguy has it right!
However, the Ponzi Scheme comment was just a comment about the status and mis-management of the system over decades. It's not part of the legal case in any way.

HOWEVER... just for info, Social Security was intended to support itself. When the system was created in 1935 there were 16 workers paying into the system for each 1 receiving benefits. That's now down to 4 workers for each 1 getting benefits. And in 12 years or so, will be 2 workers for each 1 getting benefits. Currently (2014) the system pays out more than it takes in. The system has also "greatly expanded" it's benefits since it's creation in 1935... with 367+ changes to the law since then! In theory, the SS Fund has a balance of 2+ Trillion. But that's merely a book keeping exercise that indicates, "If we managed it, and if we actually collected interest on investments that were real" we would have that amount. Yes the Fed guarantees it. But the Fed has no money either. But they do have a printing press, and they'll print the money which will come back as inflation.

There is a lot more to this. But we don't want to begin it being heard by the court here. and we are not going to give the state a "copy of our homework!"


Taxes101, thank you for the explanation.

Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
7 Pages<12345>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.502 seconds.