You irrevocably waive any right to OASI/social security and that's it. Or was it, if this bill becomes law.
Left out: If you worked 10 years and then joined the clergy and signed the form, you're revoked your eligibility. So the 10 years doesn't matter. (As a teacher in Texas, I'm covered by TRS--but I'm eligible to receive SS when I apply because being covered by a DCP for the last 20 years doesn't affect my previous contributions or eligibility. I signed no irrevocable waiver.)
I said the text is mostly clear. This bit curls around and tries to go all ouroboros as though that would be fattening:
Because Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, any benefits paid would be funded by the clergy members’ own contributions.
Yes, SS is a pay-go system: What's paid goes now for current expenses. That is, a payer's 'own contributions' funds current payments--so unless the claim is that you pay in $200 and get $200 back, what you are paying as FICA is equal to or greater than your current benefits, the sentence is gibberish. Any benefits paid (in the future) will be funded by future payers' contributions, or the benefits will be reduced (most recent estimate I've seen is in the mid-high-teen percents but people like using the scarier older one).
This is not neutral, since most of the time, these days, people pay in less than they get "back". Hence the current reduction in the 'trust fund'. Contrary to claims of 'theft' often bandied about without understanding, by law it had to be placed in special issue treasury bills and is currently gradually, but soon to be quickly, being redeemed, at no increase to the national debt as calculated one way but at an increase in publicly held debt--by which I mean not 'debt held by the federal government' but 'debt held by individuals, investment funds, pensions, and, weirdly, the Federal Reserve'--sure to create some problems with the debt-issuance system (and maybe the federal deficit).
= new reply since forum marked as read