Social Security Bill passes for Federal Employees

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Senate passes Social Security bill to repeal WEP and GPO (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2024/12/senate-passes-social-security-bill-to-repeal-wep-and-gpo/)

Not sure what this means, other than more people can collect, and that means the insolvency is now approaching sooner.

Lets hope the Congress can fix social security without all the continuing resolutions to fix the debt ceiling and the budget ever increasing spending

good luck to us!

[retiredguy123]

If this law is enacted, I may be able to receive a spouse benefit from my ex-spouse's work record. This is based on the GPO (Government Pension Offset) rule that has totally eliminated my spouse benefit since I retired. I don't really need the extra income, but it will help to pay my huge Federal tax bill, which is higher than all of my living expenses combined.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Ronald Reagan did two things that I heartily disagree with (with the benefit of hindsight, of course): 1) closed the mental hospitals, and; 2) enacted the WEP and GPO to social security.

Passage of this bill, the Social Security Fairness Act and signature by a president (both Biden and Trump have said they supported the Act) will return fairness to social security by eliminating the WEP and GPO.

Currently, if you earned 40 credits, AND you earned a public pension, they greatly reduced your social security - usually by 70%!! If your benefit was $700, you are getting $145/month simply because you paid into two different systems.

This Act does NOT give people with public pensions double-dipping access to social security UNLESS they also have earned their social security via 40 credits like everyone else.

This Act gives full credit that is due to anyone who worked their full 40 credits - as it should be.

Currently, someone with a government pension, even though they worked 10 years before and 10 years after in the private sector or otherwise worked enough to earn their 40 social security credits, has that social security benefit drastically reduced simply because they also worked in public service. Mostly it's cops, puddle-monkeys, and teachers.

Is it fair if you worked for IBM until you were 35 or 40, and then went and joined a police department for 20 years until you were 55 or 60 to only get what you earned from the police force, but get 70% of your social security benefit taken because you did that?

The other thing it does is protect mostly women. If your spouse worked for a city, county, state or the feds, your spousal benefit from their social security would be normally be negative or zero dollars. You did not get a thing even though the spouse earned their 40 credits.

This Act gives the rightfully earned fair benefit to those who earned it, regardless of whatever other career path they may have chosen over time.

[Bill14564]

It’s not quite that simple, right?

If you earned a pension at a job, quit for a while, then returned for enough time to qualify for a pension you wouldn’t put really expect to collect two pensions from the same company.

If you and your spouse both qualify for SS benefits you don’t expect to collect both your SS plus spouse or widow(er) benefits.

If you worked 80 quarters you don’t expect to get two SS checks.

The thought behind the WEP and GPO seems to be that the Govt pays two types of retirement, a pension for some and SS for others, and you cannot collect two retirements from the same source.

This new bill, which eliminates WEP and GPO, says yes you can collect two separate retirements from the Govt.

[Pugchief]

The better solution is to get rid of pensions for all govt employees (federal, state, municipal, county) and put them in a 401k type plan that the employer matches similarly to the private sector.

As far as SS is concerned, it prob makes sense to gradually move that away from the current ponzi structure toward a privatized system, while still honoring benefits to those who have paid in.

[retiredguy123]

It’s not quite that simple, right?

If you earned a pension at a job, quit for a while, then returned for enough time to qualify for a pension you wouldn’t put really expect to collect two pensions from the same company.

If you and your spouse both qualify for SS benefits you don’t expect to collect both your SS plus spouse or widow(er) benefits.

If you worked 80 quarters you don’t expect to get two SS checks.

The thought behind the WEP and GPO seems to be that the Govt pays two types of retirement, a pension for some and SS for others, and you cannot collect two retirements from the same source.

This new bill, which eliminates WEP and GPO, says yes you can collect two separate retirements from the Govt.
If a husband worked and qualifies for SS, the spouse can also collect a spouse benefit (half of the husband's check), even if she never worked. That would be two Government retirement checks. If the husband dies, the spouse can only collect one SS check, but it would be the higher amount.

I had a cousin who benefitted from 4 Government checks: a military retiree check, a spouse SS check, her husband's SS check, and her husband's civilian Government retirement check. And, she never worked a day in her life.

Note that military retirees are allowed to retire after 20 years, and then get a civilian Government job, and collect two Government retirement checks, and a SS check, and if they have a spouse, the spouse can collect a spouse benefit check, plus two survivor checks after he dies.

[Bill14564]

If a husband worked and qualifies for SS, the spouse can also collect a spouse benefit (half of the husband's check), even if she never worked. That would be two Government retirement checks. If the husband dies, the spouse can only collect one SS check, but it would be the higher amount.

I had a cousin who benefitted from 4 Government checks: a military retiree check, a spouse SS check, her husband's SS check, and her husband's civilian Government retirement check. And, she never worked a day in her life.

Note that military retirees are allowed to retire after 20 years, and then get a civilian Government job, and collect two Government retirement checks, and a SS check, and if they have a spouse, the spouse can collect a spouse benefit check, plus two survivor checks after he dies.

Right, it's not simple.

I believe if a spouse has worked they can choose to collect their benefits or the spouse benefits, whichever is higher, but they don't get to collect both.

Did your cousin receive four checks with her name on them or were three of those made out to her husband?

The three checks might not be inconsistent. Military benefits could be handled completely and totally separate from SS benefits. The Federal govt has had two retirement plans recently. One of those plans did not require paying into SS while the current plan does. WEP and GPO applied to the earlier, non-SS plan only. With the new plan, the retiree will receive both a pension check and a SS check with survivor benefits applying to both.

[ElDiabloJoe]

[QUOTE=Bill14564;2395771]It’s not quite that simple, right?

If you earned a pension at a job, quit for a while, then returned for enough time to qualify for a pension you wouldn’t put really expect to collect two pensions from the same company. No, but if you earned a pension at one job (e.g., IBM), then worked for enough time to qualify for a pension from a completely different company (e.g., Delta Airlines), you'd be entitled to both earned pensions, right? I worked 10-plus years for Continental Airlines before becoming a street cop. Am I not entitled to the SS I paid into for those years at the airline AND the pension I earned in L.A.? Same with the military - you serve 20 years in the USMC, and then become a fireman at 40 and work another 25 years, did you not earn both the military and the city's pension?

If you and your spouse both qualify for SS benefits you don’t expect to collect both your SS plus spouse or widow(er) benefits. No, you qualify for EITHER your benefit, or the spousal benefit, not both.

If you worked 80 quarters you don’t expect to get two SS checks. Now you're just being silly. If I worked 40 quarters AND my wife worked 40 quarters, we should still get two social security checks, right? Or since it is one household you think we should only get the one?

The thought behind the WEP and GPO seems to be that the Govt pays two types of retirement, a pension for some and SS for others, and you cannot collect two retirements from the same source. IF your pension paid into SS (most don't), then YES, you paid into SS AND your city pension. You deserve both that you paid into.

This new bill, which eliminates WEP and GPO, says yes you can collect two separate retirements from the Govt.ONLY if you earned the government pension AND earned your 40 credits with non-public service employment../QUOTE]

[Bill14564]

It’s not quite that simple, right?

If you earned a pension at a job, quit for a while, then returned for enough time to qualify for a pension you wouldn’t put really expect to collect two pensions from the same company. No, but if you earned a pension at one job (e.g., IBM), then worked for enough time to qualify for a pension from a completely different company (e.g., Delta Airlines), you'd be entitled to both earned pensions, right?

If you and your spouse both qualify for SS benefits you don’t expect to collect both your SS plus spouse or widow(er) benefits. No, you qualify for EITHER your benefit, or the spousal benefit, not both.

If you worked 80 quarters you don’t expect to get two SS checks. Now you're just being silly. If I worked 40 quarters AND my wife worked 40 quarters, we should still get two social security checks, right? Or since it is one household you think we should only get the one?

The thought behind the WEP and GPO seems to be that the Govt pays two types of retirement, a pension for some and SS for others, and you cannot collect two retirements from the same source. IF your pension paid into SS (most don't), then YES, you paid into SS AND your city pension. You deserve both that you paid into.

This new bill, which eliminates WEP and GPO, says yes you can collect two separate retirements from the Govt.ONLY if you earned the government pension AND earned your 40 credits with non-public service employment.

1. But those affected by WEP are not collecting benefits from two separate providers, both the govt pension and the SS payments are from the govt. In fact, the govt pension was a program used instead of SS which is why the employee didn’t pay into SS under that program. The new law says to forget that, disregard that the pension was to replace SS, and write checks from the Fed Treasury for both programs.

2. Right, you don’t expect to collect twice from the same retirement source.

3. Two individuals, two qualifying careers, two checks. But that isn’t what I described and that isn’t what WEP or GPO applied to.

4. WEP and GPO saw that differently. They saw a single individual qualifying for govt benefits two ways but from the same govt and the same treasury. Both were intended to provide full retirement benefits to a single employee so it made no sense to pay double retirement benefits to that single employee.

5. Obviously. Otherwise, neither WEP nor GPO would apply.

NOTE: I’m not against the elimination of these two reductions, I just see the logic behind them.

[retiredguy123]

Right, it's not simple.

I believe if a spouse has worked they can choose to collect their benefits or the spouse benefits, whichever is higher, but they don't get to collect both.

Did your cousin receive four checks with her name on them or were three of those made out to her husband?

The three checks might not be inconsistent. Military benefits could be handled completely and totally separate from SS benefits. The Federal govt has had two retirement plans recently. One of those plans did not require paying into SS while the current plan does. WEP and GPO applied to the earlier, non-SS plan only. With the new plan, the retiree will receive both a pension check and a SS check with survivor benefits applying to both.
When my cousin's husband died, she was eligible for 3 checks in her name, a SS check, a military survivor check, and a civilian Government pension survivor check. While he was alive, there were 4 checks, but only one was in her name, the SS spouse check.

But, the most absurd situation is that military people can retire after 20 years, and then immediately return as a GS-15 or SES civilian employee and earn another full pension. They have an inside track with military preference, and sometimes they return in one day to the same desk.

[ElDiabloJoe]

1. But those affected by WEP are not collecting benefits from two separate providers, both the govt pension and the SS payments are from the govt. In fact, the govt pension was a program used instead of SS which is why the employee didn’t pay into SS under that program. The new law says to forget that, disregard that the pension was to replace SS, and write checks from the Fed Treasury for both programs.

2. Right, you don’t expect to collect twice from the same retirement source.

3. Two individuals, two qualifying careers, two checks. But that isn’t what I described and that isn’t what WEP or GPO applied to.

4. WEP and GPO saw that differently. They saw a single individual qualifying for govt benefits two ways but from the same govt and the same treasury. Both were intended to provide full retirement benefits to a single employee so it made no sense to pay double retirement benefits to that single employee.

5. Obviously. Otherwise, neither WEP nor GPO would apply.

Bill, I might be wrong, but it sounds like you are assuming that a double-dipper earned both a Federal pension and Federal social security benefits. MOST of those impacted by this were teachers at the local level, and city police and fireman MOST of whom receive pensions from their county or state, not the Federal government.

The Federal government is not paying people twice in most cases. They are paying people for benefits (40 credits) earned in private employment, and local/state pensions they paid into are paying their pensions.

Social Security was supposed to be part of a proverbial three-legged stool for retirement: Employer pension, social security, and savings. Sadly, many only have the one leg of that stool to rely upon. The newer approach to 401(k)/IRA/SEP/Keough etc, became popular since so many employer pensions were raided and depleted (auto manufactures and airlines are classic examples). Now many only pay into 401(k) as their savings, so they foolishly combine those two stool legs.

Anyhow, this Social Security Fairness Act is not about giving people both pensions and social security if they did not pay into both. They "Fairness" comes from getting the full benefit for your years of paying into social security and not having your benefit reduced 70% or down to zero simply because you worked for the City of New York instead of Microsoft. It's like reducing your social security 70% because Microsoft granted you stock options throughout your career there - why should you get both stock options AND social security, right?

[Bill14564]

Bill, I might be wrong, but it sounds like you are assuming that a double-dipper earned both a Federal pension and Federal social security benefits. MOST of those impacted by this were teachers at the local level, and city police and fireman MOST of whom receive pensions from their county or state, not the Federal government.

The Federal government is not paying people twice in most cases. They are paying people for benefits (40 credits) earned in private employment, and local/state pensions they paid into are paying their pensions.

Social Security was supposed to be part of a proverbial three-legged stool for retirement: Employer pension, social security, and savings. Sadly, many only have the one leg of that stool to rely upon. The newer approach to 401(k)/IRA/SEP/Keough etc, became popular since so many employer pensions were raided and depleted (auto manufactures and airlines are classic examples). Now many only pay into 401(k) as their savings, so they foolishly combine those two stool legs.

Anyhow, this Social Security Fairness Act is not about giving people both pensions and social security if they did not pay into both. They "Fairness" comes from getting the full benefit for your years of paying into social security and not having your benefit reduced 70% or down to zero simply because you worked for the City of New York instead of Microsoft. It's like reducing your social security 70% because Microsoft granted you stock options throughout your career there - why should you get both stock options AND social security, right?

If the public pension was funded in lieu of paying SS tax then it is reasonable that the reductions would apply.

SS was never intended to be part of a three-legged stool. 401Ks did not exist when SS was created. Public pension programs funded with money that would otherwise have gone to SS never envisioned the recipient receiving SS. The govt’s CSRS was an example of this - no SS payments and no 401K, just a generous pension adequate to retire on.

The govt’s FERS is an example of the three-legged stool program.

[retiredguy123]

Personally, I think the spouse benefit should be eliminated. If someone doesn't pay into the system, they should not get a check. The way the current system works is that a worker can be married 4 or 5 times, and as long as each marriage lasts at least 10 years, all of the ex-spouses are entitled to a check, even if they never worked at all. Some ex-spouses, who never worked, are receiving a check that is higher than a fulltime worker who worked for 30 or 40 years.

[bsloan1960]

People with pensions were being screwed out of some or all of the SS because the government felt they made too much money with their pensions. So if your were making $500 per month on a pension, your SS would be reduced by $500. This is a real screw job since people work their entire careers to get a pension AND SS knowing in advance they couldn't live only SS. Senate passes Social Security bill to repeal WEP and GPO (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2024/12/senate-passes-social-security-bill-to-repeal-wep-and-gpo/)

Not sure what this means, other than more people can collect, and that means the insolvency is now approaching sooner.

Lets hope the Congress can fix social security without all the continuing resolutions to fix the debt ceiling and the budget ever increasing spending

good luck to us!

[bagboy]

I can't speak to spousal benefits affected by this passage. I can tell you, my wife worked for the state of Ohio for thirty years, retiring at age 48. She began collecting retirement right away from Ohio Public Employee Retirement System. She then went to work for a private company outside of government for 11 years, paying into Social Security for 44 quarters.
She applied for Social Security at age 65, and her benefits were drastically reduced due to her state pension. The passage of the Social Security Fairness Act will allow her to collect what she has earned, based on the amount she has paid into it.

[Utah Flyfisher]

Personally, I think the spouse benefit should be eliminated. If someone doesn't pay into the system, they should not get a check. The way the current system works is that a worker can be married 4 or 5 times, and as long as each marriage lasts at least 10 years, all of the ex-spouses are entitled to a check, even if they never worked at all. Some ex-spouses, who never worked, are receiving a check that is higher than a fulltime worker who worked for 30 or 40 years.

I get benefits forever because my husband works for the USAF. Civilian. Not enlisted. No potential sacrifice or loss of life and yet here I am set for life because….. 🤷🏻*♀️ I’ve never understood how or why. I’ve been employed FT for over 40 years but the reason I have security is because my husband works for the AF. Why doesn’t my employment history have anything to do with my benefits/security?

[JustSomeGuy]

Issue is that social security has no visibility to your income while covered by a pension and NOT paying social security. it is about earnings. A person in the non-social security plan was prevented from taking a social security covered job for a reduce number of years and getting that income replaced at the low income rate of higher replacement.

Forbes example....Now let’s suppose you receive what’s called a “non-covered” pension, which is work where no Social Security tax is withheld. These pensions include teachers, public sector workers such as firefighters, police , state, local or county employees. Let’s also assume that you earn $84,000 in that job and have a side job subject to Social Security withholding and earn $12,000. When you apply for Social Security benefits, to Social Security you look like a “low earner”, which you are not. Social Security does not have access to information relating to your “non-covered” pension. Because of that, when Social Security calculates your benefit, you have a replacement percentage of 90%. If your Social Security benefit was calculated as if all your earnings were in the Social Security system on total earnings of $96,000, your replacement rate would be 40%, not 90%. Since you really are not a low earner because your total income is $96,000, Social Security reduces your monthly Social Security benefit by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) to adjust for the higher replacement percentage which you would not be entitled to if all of your earnings were in the Social Security system.

[JustSomeGuy]

Goal of the programs were to give those not paying social security when covered by pensions equal treatment of a similar salaried social security paying person, not the larger pension benefit plus the entire social security payment. Goal was to give similar total payouts like the pension /social security combination paid the same as the same number of years and same salaried social security tax payer.

The GPO reduction in Social Security benefits is 2/3rds of the monthly amount of the public sector government retirement benefit you receive. Of note, if you receive a lump sum payment from a public sector government pension, the lump sum will be converted into a monthly annuity benefit by Social Security. For example, let’s assume you and your spouse have both reached your full retirement age for Social Security purposes. That would mean you are between the ages of 66-67. Your public sector government pension is $3,000/month and you have no Social Security benefit of your own. As a spouse, you are entitled to a spousal benefit of 50% of your spouse’s full retirement age Social Security benefit. Assume your spouse’s Social Security full retirement age benefit is $2,500, so therefore you would be entitled to $1,250. Since 2/3rds of your public sector government pension is $2,000 ($3,000 x 66%) and is greater than the spousal benefit of $1,250, the spousal benefit is reduced to zero.


Now let’s assume your public sector government pension is $1,500, then you would be entitled to a $250 spousal benefit. Here’s the math: $1,500 x 66% = $1,000. The Social Security spousal benefit reduced by the GPO of $1,000 produces a spousal benefit of $250. From this last example you can see that the full 50% spousal benefit of $1,250 is made up of $1,000 from your public sector government pension and $250 from Social Security.

As you can see from the above example, the GPO can reduce your Social Security spousal benefit to zero.

[MplsPete]

OMG, this makes my head spin. I barely can follow what is being said; So, let me pose a question, and if anyone can answer it I will be grateful.

Let's assume I worked for a branch of government for about 15 years, about 40 years ago. FERS, not CSRS. And let's assume I get a small pension from that, say, 500 a month. I will be starting SS soon, past full retirement age. Will the 500 cause a reduction in my SS? When I die, will this affect my spouse?

[Pmelo]

But, the most absurd situation is that military people can retire after 20 years, and then immediately return as a GS-15 or SES civilian employee and earn another full pension. They have an inside track with military preference, and sometimes they return in one day to the same desk.

Anyone could have joined the military (unless a medical condition, etc). And yes members of the armed services can retire after 20 years but perhaps what many don't know is the hours put in during those 20 years, the sacrifices, the works conditions, and NO overtime to name a few. And many don't make it to the 20 years.
cheers...

[Craftylady]

My husband worked for the VA and is collecting a pension, which he paid into, from there. He also worked many part time jobs and paid into social security. Currently he gets 1/3. Of money he paid into social security. Is that fair, no.

[sedwyer]

OMG, this makes my head spin. I barely can follow what is being said; So, let me pose a question, and if anyone can answer it I will be grateful.

Let's assume I worked for a branch of government for about 15 years, about 40 years ago. FERS, not CSRS. And let's assume I get a small pension from that, say, 500 a month. I will be starting SS soon, past full retirement age. Will the 500 cause a reduction in my SS? When I die, will this affect my spouse?
FERS are not affected as they paid into SS. CSRS did not.

[Petes]

It’s explained simply here.
https://youtu.be/liW2W5VasDk
Both were very unjust.

[Bill14564]

It’s explained simply here.
https://youtu.be/liW2W5VasDk
Both were very unjust.

They were also partially explained in posts 17 and 18 with Forbes cited as the source. There was good logic behind both provisions.

[ithos]

Maybe this is something DOGE will be interested in.:icon_wink:

[talonip]

My wife worked as a teacher in Missouri and retired and gets a pension from the state of Missouri. She also worked outside of the teacher Missouri pension system and paid into social security with 40 credits.

That sir is two different govt agency’s. Missouri and federal. The WEP system also restricted her from getting survivor benefits from social security if I were to pass away.

Point is she paid into SS to the max.

I was an airline pilot with a pension. and a 20 year military retiree. Should my military be reduced or eliminated?
Think about it!

[MSGirl]

Ronald Reagan did two things that I heartily disagree with (with the benefit of hindsight, of course): 1) closed the mental hospitals, and; 2) enacted the WEP and GPO to social security.

Passage of this bill, the Social Security Fairness Act and signature by a president (both Biden and Trump have said they supported the Act) will return fairness to social security by eliminating the WEP and GPO.

Currently, if you earned 40 credits, AND you earned a public pension, they greatly reduced your social security - usually by 70%!! If your benefit was $700, you are getting $145/month simply because you paid into two different systems.

This Act does NOT give people with public pensions double-dipping access to social security UNLESS they also have earned their social security via 40 credits like everyone else.

This Act gives full credit that is due to anyone who worked their full 40 credits - as it should be.

Currently, someone with a government pension, even though they worked 10 years before and 10 years after in the private sector or otherwise worked enough to earn their 40 social security credits, has that social security benefit drastically reduced simply because they also worked in public service. Mostly it's cops, puddle-monkeys, and teachers.

Is it fair if you worked for IBM until you were 35 or 40, and then went and joined a police department for 20 years until you were 55 or 60 to only get what you earned from the police force, but get 70% of your social security benefit taken because you did that?

The other thing it does is protect mostly women. If your spouse worked for a city, county, state or the feds, your spousal benefit from their social security would be normally be negative or zero dollars. You did not get a thing even though the spouse earned their 40 credits.

This Act gives the rightfully earned fair benefit to those who earned it, regardless of whatever other career path they may have chosen over time.
I worked 8 years of my career for state government. Would that qualify me for this additional Social Security? I do receive SS and a small government pension.

[Topspinmo]

When my cousin's husband died, she was eligible for 3 checks in her name, a SS check, a military survivor check, and a civilian Government pension survivor check. While he was alive, there were 4 checks, but only one was in her name, the SS spouse check.

But, the most absurd situation is that military people can retire after 20 years, and then immediately return as a GS-15 or SES civilian employee and earn another full pension. They have an inside track with military preference, and sometimes they return in one day to the same desk.

You say that cause you wasn’t military retirees. Your CRS benifits only because you never paid in to SS. Military retirement has paid into SS from day on. If that retiree goes to work for federal government they start over, very few get GS15 position after retirement unless they are high ranking officers. Which IMO shouldn’t be allowed do to there position and control over contracts (which opens up another hold can or worms). Even then they are under new retirement called furs when they pay into and still pay SS. Military retirement has nothing to do with other two, it’s separate. Now survives benefits for military, they pay for that out of their military retirement. Nobody was holding anybody back from joining military. It was open to everyone. But some can’t take orders or willing to move at drop of hat.

[Topspinmo]

The better solution is to get rid of pensions for all govt employees (federal, state, municipal, county) and put them in a 401k type plan that the employer matches similarly to the private sector.

As far as SS is concerned, it prob makes sense to gradually move that away from the current ponzi structure toward a privatized system, while still honoring benefits to those who have paid in.

Might want add unfunded teachers union also:22yikes:

[Topspinmo]

I worked 8 years of my career for state government. Would that qualify me for this additional Social Security? I do receive SS and a small government pension.

Probably need to go to SS office, I sure it in you’re records and they compensated for that but never know worth checking if you can put up with line at SS office.

[Topspinmo]

I get benefits forever because my husband works for the USAF. Civilian. Not enlisted. No potential sacrifice or loss of life and yet here I am set for life because….. 🤷🏻*♀️ I’ve never understood how or why. I’ve been employed FT for over 40 years but the reason I have security is because my husband works for the AF. Why doesn’t my employment history have anything to do with my benefits/security?

His benefits stop upon his death unless have benifits plan that he paid into for you?

[Topspinmo]

His benefits stop upon his death unless have benifits plan that he paid into for you?

Civilian employees always get Better deal than enlisted service members has do with numbers and who in charge benifits rules.

[Topspinmo]

OMG, this makes my head spin. I barely can follow what is being said; So, let me pose a question, and if anyone can answer it I will be grateful.

Let's assume I worked for a branch of government for about 15 years, about 40 years ago. FERS, not CSRS. And let's assume I get a small pension from that, say, 500 a month. I will be starting SS soon, past full retirement age. Will the 500 cause a reduction in my SS? When I die, will this affect my spouse?

Won’t get nothing until you reach retirement age. It shouldn’t because you paid into FURS which separate retirement, you wife will only get pension if you selected survive benifits based on how much you paid into to for 360 months (i think) based on how much she gets. Furs shouldn’t affect her SS be benifits

[Nell57]

It’s not quite that simple, right?

If you earned a pension at a job, quit for a while, then returned for enough time to qualify for a pension you wouldn’t put really expect to collect two pensions from the same company.

If you and your spouse both qualify for SS benefits you don’t expect to collect both your SS plus spouse or widow(er) benefits.

If you worked 80 quarters you don’t expect to get two SS checks.

The thought behind the WEP and GPO seems to be that the Govt pays two types of retirement, a pension for some and SS for others, and you cannot collect two retirements from the same source.

This new bill, which eliminates WEP and GPO, says yes you can collect two separate retirements from the Govt.


This is named the Social Security Fairness Act.
WEP and GPO was only enacted in 15 states. By repealing these punitive laws public employees in all 50 states are now all treated the same.
My husband paid the maximum into Social Security his entire career. He collected SS for two years but sadly died at 67. Because of WEP and GPO I never received another dime, because my pension as a retired teacher was somewhat more than his Social Security. I know many women who stayed home and never worked. When their husbands were alive their household collected two Social Security checks. After his death, the widow collects the larger amount. Now that these acts are repealed, I, too, will receive the widows benefits.
No one will be getting two Social Security checks. As an Ohio teacher, my Ohio pension is through the Ohio State Teachers Retirement System. That is what I paid into and that is where my retirement checks come from. Fire fighters, police officers, and many public servants also receive their pensions from other State Plans. If this household also is fully vested in Social Security then they are entitled to receive a benefit.
This act corrects an injustice to public servants in 15 states. Congress has been working on it since 2003. It is called the
Social Security FAIRNESS Act and was supported by Biden and Trump. Long, long overdue.

[Bill14564]

My wife worked as a teacher in Missouri and retired and gets a pension from the state of Missouri. She also worked outside of the teacher Missouri pension system and paid into social security with 40 credits.

That sir is two different govt agency’s. Missouri and federal. The WEP system also restricted her from getting survivor benefits from social security if I were to pass away.

Point is she paid into SS to the max.

I was an airline pilot with a pension. and a 20 year military retiree. Should my military be reduced or eliminated?
Think about it!

Let's think about it this way. Let's say the deductions from your wife's pay as a teacher went to SS instead of to the state agency. She would then be eligible to collect SS retirement benefits on her time as a teacher.

Then she left that job and continued as you wrote, working and contributing to SS again. If fact, she worked enough under this job to qualify again for SS.

Should she be able to collect two SS checks? (If so, I am due for three)

Clearly the answer is no. Her SS benefit would be calculated on the totality of her time paying into SS. She would receive one benefit from SS even though she contributed twice.

So how is the current situation any different? Instead of putting any money at all into SS it was put into a parallel program. Now when her SS benefit is calculated the system looks at the totality of her time paying SS but also takes into consideration the benefit she is receiving from the program that was used IN PLACE OF SS.

She was allowed to avoid paying into SS during that teacher's job because she would be collecting benefits from that program rather than SS. Now that she changed her mind and decided to pay into SS also, the system says fine, collect the benefits IN PLACE OF SS and we'll also allow you to collect SS but only after recalculating for those "IN PLACE OF" benefits.

NOTE: These reductions only apply to pensions received from programs where NO SS WAS PAID.

NOTE 2: These reductions do not apply to most (any?) private pension systems because those systems did not exempt employees from paying SS taxes. (this is consistent with the govt's CSRS and FERS systems. CSRS did not pay into SS and the reductions apply. FERS DOES pay into SS and no reductions apply)

NOTE 3: The WEP system applies to her SS benefits only. Survivor benefits are (were) restricted by GPO. Similar idea though I haven't looked into whether there is an exact parallel with collecting both SS and SS survivor.

[Bill14564]

...

It is called the
Social Security FAIRNESS Act and was supported by Biden and Trump. Long, long overdue.

I give exactly ZERO weight to the name of any act. The only thing that surprises me is that they haven't come up with an eight-word title for that has "FAIRNESS" as an acronym. Names are chosen for marketing purposes.

[Jerry F2]

Senate passes Social Security bill to repeal WEP and GPO (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2024/12/senate-passes-social-security-bill-to-repeal-wep-and-gpo/)

Not sure what this means, other than more people can collect, and that means the insolvency is now approaching sooner.

Lets hope the Congress can fix social security without all the continuing resolutions to fix the debt ceiling and the budget ever increasing spending

good luck to us!

Explain the repeal of WEP and GPO. People who worked as Civil Service Employees...Firefighters, Police, Teachers, USPS and other jobs...paid into Civil Service Pension and not into Social Security...However 2.7 million of those people (the ones people always praise for their job) also worked at other jobs before during or after their Civil Service time and earned the needed 40 quarters to receive a monthly payment. Example: I worked USPS and my "second job" was a company maybe you heard of them U.S. Army. During my career at USPS..I would leave for time to time for training or war. Desert Storm, Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan(injured), a year each time. During my times away from USPS, I was not paid by them (understandable) and they listed me as "unavailable for work" and USPS stopped any benefits for my family until my return to work. When I filed for my SS they cut check it half 50% because of my Civil Service Pension. Wait, it gets better. Then a few years later, when my wife (Civil Service Employee) filed for SS, they took 50% from her check ...then they took another 50% because her husband..me..was a Civil Service Retiree. So, she gets $0.00. Thank you for working two or three jobs...Thank you for your service.... Really??? This WEP bill will fix a 40 year wrong (1983) .... People may not like it, but we earned it, this is not a handout. As a four-time Combat Veteran any negative comments about my explanation will prove that "Thank you for your service" has a hollow ring to it.

[GoldenBoy]

FERS are not affected as they paid into SS. CSRS did not.

If you have questions about Social Security, call the SSA and ask someone who actually has the definitive information. If you have a question about who can fix a garage door in TV, post it here.

[tombpot]

When does it start

[nn0wheremann]

Ronald Reagan did two things that I heartily disagree with (with the benefit of hindsight, of course): 1) closed the mental hospitals, and; 2) enacted the WEP and GPO to social security.

Passage of this bill, the Social Security Fairness Act and signature by a president (both Biden and Trump have said they supported the Act) will return fairness to social security by eliminating the WEP and GPO.

Currently, if you earned 40 credits, AND you earned a public pension, they greatly reduced your social security - usually by 70%!! If your benefit was $700, you are getting $145/month simply because you paid into two different systems.

This Act does NOT give people with public pensions double-dipping access to social security UNLESS they also have earned their social security via 40 credits like everyone else.

This Act gives full credit that is due to anyone who worked their full 40 credits - as it should be.

Currently, someone with a government pension, even though they worked 10 years before and 10 years after in the private sector or otherwise worked enough to earn their 40 social security credits, has that social security benefit drastically reduced simply because they also worked in public service. Mostly it's cops, puddle-monkeys, and teachers.

Is it fair if you worked for IBM until you were 35 or 40, and then went and joined a police department for 20 years until you were 55 or 60 to only get what you earned from the police force, but get 70% of your social security benefit taken because you did that?

The other thing it does is protect mostly women. If your spouse worked for a city, county, state or the feds, your spousal benefit from their social security would be normally be negative or zero dollars. You did not get a thing even though the spouse earned their 40 credits.

This Act gives the rightfully earned fair benefit to those who earned it, regardless of whatever other career path they may have chosen over time.
On GPO, you are entirely correct. As to WEP, it is a bit more complicated. Social Security benefits are “weighted “ so that low income wage earners get a higher replacement ratio for earnings lost due to retirement than a high income earner. In assessing the return ratio someone who has a short record of covered earnings, but enough to be insured, is indistinguishable from one who had a long record of low wages. Both get the higher weighted replacement ratio. The replacement ratio varies from 50% for someone who worked for minimum wage for their working lifetime, to 29% for someone with maximum covered earnings for a lifetime.
Where WEP went wrong was for the people who worked for both covered and exempt earnings, but for low wages in both. They got screwed.

[retiredguy123]

You say that cause you wasn’t military retirees. Your CRS benifits only because you never paid in to SS. Military retirement has paid into SS from day on. If that retiree goes to work for federal government they start over, very few get GS15 position after retirement unless they are high ranking officers. Which IMO shouldn’t be allowed do to there position and control over contracts (which opens up another hold can or worms). Even then they are under new retirement called furs when they pay into and still pay SS. Military retirement has nothing to do with other two, it’s separate. Now survives benefits for military, they pay for that out of their military retirement. Nobody was holding anybody back from joining military. It was open to everyone. But some can’t take orders or willing to move at drop of hat.
In D.C., it is very common for a LT Colonel or above to line up a GS-15 civilian position before they retire, and step right into that position immediately. In some offices, it is a waste of time for a career civilian employee to even apply for the position because the office is managed and controlled by military retirees.

[Nell57]

Personally, I think the spouse benefit should be eliminated. If someone doesn't pay into the system, they should not get a check. The way the current system works is that a worker can be married 4 or 5 times, and as long as each marriage lasts at least 10 years, all of the ex-spouses are entitled to a check, even if they never worked at all. Some ex-spouses, who never worked, are receiving a check that is higher than a fulltime worker who worked for 30 or 40 years.

You’ve got that right.
I have a good friend,Mary, who never worked a day in her life. She receives SS from her ex-spouse. He married two more times. When George died all three wives received an increase in benefits, to George’s amount.
Mary’s next relationship was with Bill. He was a retired teacher, and received his benefits through the State Teachers Retirement Plan. Although they weren’t married, Bill named Mary as beneficiary.
Upon his death, she began receiving his full amount.
I had a 33 year career as a teacher, and because of WEP/GPO I could not collect my deceased husbands SS. Mary never worked a day in her life, she collects two monthly checks, and her retirement income is more than double of mine.

This is some of the inequality that the SS Fairness Act addresses.

[Carlsondm]

Are you sure you were fully vested in your retirement plan after 8 years? More than 10 was required for us.

[Bill14564]

...

They're just not getting what they deserve because they chose to work hard, long hours, and extra jobs to earn additional benefits. They're being punished simply because those jobs were in the public sector, public service and not for a profit-driven corporation.

...


I worked hard, long hours, and extra jobs to earn additional quarters - who do I talk to about receiving the three SS checks that I have jobs and quarters for?

Those affected by WEP and GPO are not being "punished" at all, they are/were simply NOT being rewarded for avoiding SS taxes for half of their careers. They were not chosen simply because those jobs were in the public sector, public service and not for a profit-driven company. They were chosen because the DID NOT PAY SS taxes in those jobs.

One of my jobs was in the public sector, public service and not for a profit-driven company. I still receive both a pension and (soon) SS retirement. This is the case because I DID PAY SS taxes in that job.

[GATORBILL66]

EXAMPLE: Here is what happened to me. I worked in the private sector before working for the postal service. Once I turned 66, i began collecting my full social security benefits. Once I retired from the postal service I was told they would be cutting my social security benefits by 50%. Now with new bill that passed last week I will be collecting my full social security benefits finally after so many years of only getting half of what I actually earned through social security.

[Blueblaze]

All the weirdness, esoteric rules, and insolvency could be eliminated if we could bear to admit that SS is not a retirement system, but just a ridiculously expensive and inefficient welfare program for the middle class. Over half of every other government program depends on taxes from the 1% of wealthiest Americans. But with SS, we normals get hit for 15% of our income for a ponzi scheme that, by law, excuses anyone making over $110K from paying into. Meanwhile SS has been forbidden from "investing" the surplus in anything other than T-bills for all our lives. All, so we can pretend it's a retirement program -- even though you can't even claim ownership of your own "retirement" funds!

Here's a little statistic for you. The annual deficit SS is running right now, halfway into the Boomers retirement, could be covered for the next HUNDRED YEARS by HALF of Mark Zuckerburg's personal wealth -- and he'd still be a BILLIONARE ONE HUNDRED TIMES OVER. Try to imagine how little of your wealth would have been required to deliver your SS check, if Zuck and every other wealthy individual in America had been contributing the same percentage you did!

Or look at it another way. I started saving ANOTHER 15% of my income, the day I became eligible for "catch-up" contributions to my 401K. Even after losing half in the market during the housing bust, the income from my personal savings would be twice my SS check, if I actually tried to spend it all before I die. And I only had two years where my income exceeded the SS contribution limit. THAT'S how stupid Social Security is. I doubled the return on the same money in 1/3rd the time.

I'm not against the government insuring that stupid people who refuse to save for retirement don't starve in their old age. And I'm certainly not advocating that anyone like me who had 15% of their lifetime income confiscated for a ponzi scheme not be repaid every cent they are owed -- even if they don't need it. But I cannot for the life of me understand why any retired American would not argue for a sane replacement for their kids, THAT EVERYBODY PAYS FOR.

[jimjamuser]

Senate passes Social Security bill to repeal WEP and GPO (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2024/12/senate-passes-social-security-bill-to-repeal-wep-and-gpo/)

Not sure what this means, other than more people can collect, and that means the insolvency is now approaching sooner.

Lets hope the Congress can fix social security without all the continuing resolutions to fix the debt ceiling and the budget ever increasing spending

good luck to us!
Social security was designed to give the MIDDLE CLASS a small amount of stability. In other words a base from which innovation and setting up small businesses could be more imagined and acted upon. It was (and should be in the future) a building block for UPWARD MOBILITY. Today the statistics for UPWARD MOBILITY in the US are VERY dim and discouraging. The top ONE ( 1 ) percent have more WEALTH than the bottom Ninety ( 90 ) percent. All the advantages that we have in the US today were built upon MIDDLE CLASS factory workers in the 40s to 70s when UNIONS were strong. Today UNIONS are decimated by the upper 1% that OUTSOURCED US industry and WEALTH to China (we make almost nothing in factories today). We no longer have VOCATIONAL High Schools so that the poor have only one avenue for improvement - crime or joining the MILITARY.
.........My statements are proven by the generally known FACT that since 1970 each generation has been LESS SUCCESSFUL (and wealthy) than the prior generation. Today the US and Russia have one major thing in common.......OLIGARCHY !

[Achilles]

Actually very rare for a military officer, regardless of rank at retirement, to transition into a civil service position in less than six months. In 26 years as a civil servant myself I personally know of this happening in fewer than five instances. I know of many who tried, but failed, to make such a switch. Those who were successful had knowledge, skills or abilities (KSAs) specific to the civil service position they were hired into.

I do know of many former military who applied for, and were selected for a civil service position in which their former military service was a consideration in their selection. As a supervisor, I filled several positions with people, male and female, who had had prior military service. They also had the education and private sector experience to make them the most qualified for the position I was filling.

[jimjamuser]

Ronald Reagan did two things that I heartily disagree with (with the benefit of hindsight, of course): 1) closed the mental hospitals, and; 2) enacted the WEP and GPO to social security.

Passage of this bill, the Social Security Fairness Act and signature by a president (both Biden and Trump have said they supported the Act) will return fairness to social security by eliminating the WEP and GPO.

Currently, if you earned 40 credits, AND you earned a public pension, they greatly reduced your social security - usually by 70%!! If your benefit was $700, you are getting $145/month simply because you paid into two different systems.

This Act does NOT give people with public pensions double-dipping access to social security UNLESS they also have earned their social security via 40 credits like everyone else.

This Act gives full credit that is due to anyone who worked their full 40 credits - as it should be.

Currently, someone with a government pension, even though they worked 10 years before and 10 years after in the private sector or otherwise worked enough to earn their 40 social security credits, has that social security benefit drastically reduced simply because they also worked in public service. Mostly it's cops, puddle-monkeys, and teachers.

Is it fair if you worked for IBM until you were 35 or 40, and then went and joined a police department for 20 years until you were 55 or 60 to only get what you earned from the police force, but get 70% of your social security benefit taken because you did that?

The other thing it does is protect mostly women. If your spouse worked for a city, county, state or the feds, your spousal benefit from their social security would be normally be negative or zero dollars. You did not get a thing even though the spouse earned their 40 credits.

This Act gives the rightfully earned fair benefit to those who earned it, regardless of whatever other career path they may have chosen over time.
I only want to comment on one small part of this post - "the other thing it does is protect mostly WOMEN". To me that is a VERY GOOD thing because women typically earn only 70% of what a man does for the SAME job.

[retiredguy123]

Actually very rare for a military officer, regardless of rank at retirement, to transition into a civil service position in less than six months. In 26 years as a civil servant myself I personally know of this happening in fewer than five instances. I know of many who tried, but failed, to make such a switch. Those who were successful had knowledge, skills or abilities (KSAs) specific to the civil service position they were hired into.

I do know of many former military who applied for, and were selected for a civil service position in which their former military service was a consideration in their selection. As a supervisor, I filled several positions with people, male and female, who had had prior military service. They also had the education and private sector experience to make them the most qualified for the position I was filling.
In my last position as a civilian Federal employee, the newly hired office head was a retired Colonel, who hired no one but retired military personnel. If you were a civilian trying to get promoted, forget about it. There was no way you would be considered. In 3 years, he hired about 10 retired military personnel. He would even bring in GS-14 employees at the step 10 level, when they were supposed to start at Step 1. Many of these jobs were hand crafted so no one else could qualify except the person he wanted to hire.

I think this practice is rampant in the D.C. area in agencies that are controlled by the military. I don't know about other Federal agencies.

[MandoMan]

Senate passes Social Security bill to repeal WEP and GPO (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2024/12/senate-passes-social-security-bill-to-repeal-wep-and-gpo/)

Not sure what this means, other than more people can collect, and that means the insolvency is now approaching sooner.

Lets hope the Congress can fix social security without all the continuing resolutions to fix the debt ceiling and the budget ever increasing spending

good luck to us!

Fixing Social Security is pretty easy. Raise the employee contribution by 1% and raise the employer contribution by 1%. If that had been done ten years ago, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But no Congress wants to be seen to raise taxes.

[jimjamuser]

Personally, I think the spouse benefit should be eliminated. If someone doesn't pay into the system, they should not get a check. The way the current system works is that a worker can be married 4 or 5 times, and as long as each marriage lasts at least 10 years, all of the ex-spouses are entitled to a check, even if they never worked at all. Some ex-spouses, who never worked, are receiving a check that is higher than a fulltime worker who worked for 30 or 40 years.
I believe that women would put up the counter-argument that they have the job of raising the children, getting them to school. the Doctors, driving the children around, being a child psychiatrist at times, being an adult psychiatrist to her husband at times. We all agree that children are the future of America, so we have a DEBT of gratitude to WOMEN - that NEEDS to be PAID.
........Today, a US family needs the wife to work in order to JUST survive so they are having fewer and fewer children. So, what does US industry do to get more low paid workers ? And how does that differ from Australia and other countries?

[jimjamuser]

But, the most absurd situation is that military people can retire after 20 years, and then immediately return as a GS-15 or SES civilian employee and earn another full pension. They have an inside track with military preference, and sometimes they return in one day to the same desk.

Anyone could have joined the military (unless a medical condition, etc). And yes members of the armed services can retire after 20 years but perhaps what many don't know is the hours put in during those 20 years, the sacrifices, the works conditions, and NO overtime to name a few. And many don't make it to the 20 years.
cheers...
Serving in the military can be difficult even if you are never in a shooting war. The conditions are difficult and you can't even choose where you live. The military CONTROLS your life like you are in a Dictatorship. You have to have a VERY HARD shell and a certain personality to go EVEN 20 years. And those 20 years are the most productive for most people. The military life is very hard on families and children. Anyone in the military deserves rewards such as V.A. benefits.

[jimjamuser]

All the weirdness, esoteric rules, and insolvency could be eliminated if we could bear to admit that SS is not a retirement system, but just a ridiculously expensive and inefficient welfare program for the middle class. Over half of every other government program depends on taxes from the 1% of wealthiest Americans. But with SS, we normals get hit for 15% of our income for a ponzi scheme that, by law, excuses anyone making over $110K from paying into. Meanwhile SS has been forbidden from "investing" the surplus in anything other than T-bills for all our lives. All, so we can pretend it's a retirement program -- even though you can't even claim ownership of your own "retirement" funds!

Here's a little statistic for you. The annual deficit SS is running right now, halfway into the Boomers retirement, could be covered for the next HUNDRED YEARS by HALF of Mark Zuckerburg's personal wealth -- and he'd still be a BILLIONARE ONE HUNDRED TIMES OVER. Try to imagine how little of your wealth would have been required to deliver your SS check, if Zuck and every other wealthy individual in America had been contributing the same percentage you did!

Or look at it another way. I started saving ANOTHER 15% of my income, the day I became eligible for "catch-up" contributions to my 401K. Even after losing half in the market during the housing bust, the income from my personal savings would be twice my SS check, if I actually tried to spend it all before I die. And I only had two years where my income exceeded the SS contribution limit. THAT'S how stupid Social Security is. I doubled the return on the same money in 1/3rd the time.

I'm not against the government insuring that stupid people who refuse to save for retirement don't starve in their old age. And I'm certainly not advocating that anyone like me who had 15% of their lifetime income confiscated for a ponzi scheme not be repaid every cent they are owed -- even if they don't need it. But I cannot for the life of me understand why any retired American would not argue for a sane replacement for their kids, THAT EVERYBODY PAYS FOR.
I believe that i agree with you. To me, the most equitable form of taxation is where the TAX increases progressively the more a person makes. The way that SS tax stops after 110K of income is the OPPOSITE of a tax where the more you make the more you are taxed. It seems that in Washington D.C. that the tax laws (most all laws) are made by the WEALTHY to benefit the WEALTHY. Strict term limits would help prevent the country from being CONTROLLED by the RICH. But, that needed to be put into effect by around 1970. We have slowly drifted away from a Democracy since then.

[jimjamuser]

Fixing Social Security is pretty easy. Raise the employee contribution by 1% and raise the employer contribution by 1%. If that had been done ten years ago, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But no Congress wants to be seen to raise taxes.
I agree that SS could be EASILY fixed. The idea of it failing is just a smoke screen.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Fixing Social Security is pretty easy. Raise the employee contribution by 1% and raise the employer contribution by 1%. If that had been done ten years ago, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But no Congress wants to be seen to raise taxes.

That won't do any good at all, when the max income affected by the deduction is still less than $168,600/year. Starting next year that'll be $176,100/year.

If you earn paychecks (since this is exclusively a payroll deduction) totaling $500,000 in a year, they'll only take 6.2% out of your paycheck up to the first $168,600. Your employer has to pay the same amount. Another 1.45% comes out for Medicare. NOTHING will come out for SS or Medicare for the other $331,400 that you earned that year.

Granted, most people who earn that kind of money aren't getting it via paychecks. But some are. People earning $168,600 have deductions on 100% of those paychecks. Wealthy people do not. I think they should.

I also think "early retirement" could be eliminated. Right now, the basic eligibility is 65, with 67 being the expected, and 62 considered "early" retirement. Get rid of that. Have social security benefits start at age 65 (unless you're disabled, that's another ball of wax).

If you do that, then SOME folks will be paying in for 3 years longer than they otherwise would have. And that means more money available to spread around.

So - remove the max income cap AND eliminate "early" retirement, and you'll be funding it just fine for a few more generations.

[Pugchief]

I only want to comment on one small part of this post - "the other thing it does is protect mostly WOMEN". To me that is a VERY GOOD thing because women typically earn only 70% of what a man does for the SAME job.

LOL, no they don't. Debunked multiple times. One of many debunks (https://x.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1871541528923128153)

[Pugchief]

Serving in the military can be difficult even if you are never in a shooting war. The conditions are difficult and you can't even choose where you live. The military CONTROLS your life like you are in a Dictatorship. You have to have a VERY HARD shell and a certain personality to go EVEN 20 years. And those 20 years are the most productive for most people. The military life is very hard on families and children. Anyone in the military deserves rewards such as V.A. benefits.

Have you served in the military? Otherwise, what are these statements based on?

[Pugchief]

I believe that i agree with you. To me, the most equitable form of taxation is where the TAX increases progressively the more a person makes. The way that SS tax stops after 110K of income is the OPPOSITE of a tax where the more you make the more you are taxed. It seems that in Washington D.C. that the tax laws (most all laws) are made by the WEALTHY to benefit the WEALTHY. Strict term limits would help prevent the country from being CONTROLLED by the RICH. But, that needed to be put into effect by around 1970. We have slowly drifted away from a Democracy since then.

The US was never a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. That being said, the issue is that what was once an economy based on capitalism is now corporatist. So if you have any complaints, they should be directed at the lobbyists for big corporations and their employers.

[Pugchief]

People earning $168,600 have deductions on 100% of those paychecks. Wealthy people do not. I think they should.


Do you also think that people who contribute on 100% of $1M should get SS checks of $15,000/month when they retire? The reason there is a cap on earnings is bc there is also a cap on benefits.

[bdenucci]

I worked as a firefighter fighting air plane fire, structure fire, NY TOWERS 1 AND 2 . I worked there for 44 years paying. I ALSO worked at a welding supply store for 34 years. I paid SS MY WELDING JOB . When I retired I was told I'm only getting 50 percent of what I was told collect BECAUSE I WAS A FIREFIGHTER. I got 753. I was penalized for firefighter ING. Do to this law congress put into effect. Now that the law is gone I get what I put 35 years into for SS.

[USNA87]

If a husband worked and qualifies for SS, the spouse can also collect a spouse benefit (half of the husband's check), even if she never worked. That would be two Government retirement checks. If the husband dies, the spouse can only collect one SS check, but it would be the higher amount.

I had a cousin who benefitted from 4 Government checks: a military retiree check, a spouse SS check, her husband's SS check, and her husband's civilian Government retirement check. And, she never worked a day in her life.

Note that military retirees are allowed to retire after 20 years, and then get a civilian Government job, and collect two Government retirement checks, and a SS check, and if they have a spouse, the spouse can collect a spouse benefit check, plus two survivor checks after he dies.

And a VA Disability.

[bsloan1960]

This is Social Media. People post on social media to interact with others. Yes. Calling SS will get you answers. Having a running conversation on Social Media will get you information that will allow you to ask many more questions than you would have thought of. If you have questions about Social Security, call the SSA and ask someone who actually has the definitive information. If you have a question about who can fix a garage door in TV, post it here.

[rsmurano]

I’m all for people getting what they deserve out of SS, but SS pays out billions that IMO shouldn’t. For example, we have friends that he worked for the railroad all his life and has a great pension which he deserves, but when his wife turned 65, she got a railroad pension too. Why did she get 1 when she didn’t work for the railroad and she had a very good job with a pension (non-government job). I heard this comes out of the SS pot. Check it out for yourself, the 1st paragraph gives you insight into this and this is on the SS website:

Research: An Overview of the Railroad Retirement Program (https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n2/v68n2p41.html)

I watched a few videos on this new fairness act, some state it’s good while others say it’s very bad. Check this out which goes over all the things that make this new bill terrible for the remaining 97% of SS recipients. This guy has stats that can drastically increase the benefits of part time SS payees into the system and also shows that this $190B cost will cause SS to reduce benefits starting in 2031 by 20% or in 2034 by 33%. So when you look at this new bill, you have to look at the whole pucture:

Social Security "Fairness" Act is BS!! Former Insider REVEALS! | PLUS LIVE Q&A with Dr. Ed - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/live/4Tfu851k4Co?si=mBiV1ZiNkZexFCNR)

[Sabella]

But, the most absurd situation is that military people can retire after 20 years, and then immediately return as a GS-15 or SES civilian employee and earn another full pension. They have an inside track with military preference, and sometimes they return in one day to the same desk.

Anyone could have joined the military (unless a medical condition, etc). And yes members of the armed services can retire after 20 years but perhaps what many don't know is the hours put in during those 20 years, the sacrifices, the works conditions, and NO overtime to name a few. And many don't make it to the 20 years.
cheers...

20 years in the military, protecting the freedom of everyone who lives in the United States and risking death not to mention all the other personal sacrifices that our military people endure . Nothing is too good for the people who sacrifice and and protect you and everybody else in the United States.

[Romad]

Missing in this entire thread was who avoided paying social security taxes. It wasn’t the employee’s decision. They don’t get asked if they want to pay the taxes or not. It was the employer. Those state governments that avoided paying the taxes.

I was hoping the legislation would end any exemptions and every employer is required to pay into the system. One can pretend that employees pay half, but the reality is that the employer pays all of the FICA taxes.

[jimbomaybe]

Social security was designed to give the MIDDLE CLASS a small amount of stability. In other words a base from which innovation and setting up small businesses could be more imagined and acted upon. It was (and should be in the future) a building block for UPWARD MOBILITY. Today the statistics for UPWARD MOBILITY in the US are VERY dim and discouraging. The top ONE ( 1 ) percent have more WEALTH than the bottom Ninety ( 90 ) percent. All the advantages that we have in the US today were built upon MIDDLE CLASS factory workers in the 40s to 70s when UNIONS were strong. Today UNIONS are decimated by the upper 1% that OUTSOURCED US industry and WEALTH to China (we make almost nothing in factories today). We no longer have VOCATIONAL High Schools so that the poor have only one avenue for improvement - crime or joining the MILITARY.
.........My statements are proven by the generally known FACT that since 1970 each generation has been LESS SUCCESSFUL (and wealthy) than the prior generation. Today the US and Russia have one major thing in common.......OLIGARCHY !
Where to begin, SS was to be a supplement for peoples old age, human nature has encouraged many to depend too much on it, or entirely, making for a rather meager existence. This crutch has been expanded by politicians making it ever more of a general welfare fund . Making promises is always politically easy, the hard part of funding is always kicked down the road. The western democracies practicing free market capitalism have produced the highest standard of living for the largest number of humans of any time or place in history. This is because of the demonstrated success of people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Jeff Bezos, they and many lessor innovators have supplied this , we are beneficiaries not victims. The Oh So Egalitarian sounding ideas of Marx produce governmental systems that will not allow individual success, concentrate central power, and well power corrupts taking away individual freedom. After WW2 the USA was in the best of all situations its economy and industry not only intact but stimulated by war production, the American worker was in the right place at the right time. The world moves on , countries rebuild , undeveloped countries improve the result, COMPETITION. How much is the Hourly wages worth of someone doing a job that can be learned in a few hours and done by any reasonably fit , intelligent human being that has ever lived ?

[Gn'Me]

How Public Employees Can Double-Dip in Social Security | American Enterprise Institute - AEI (https://www.aei.org/articles/how-public-employees-can-double-dip-in-social-security/)

[Lynnesail]

Senate passes Social Security bill to repeal WEP and GPO (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2024/12/senate-passes-social-security-bill-to-repeal-wep-and-gpo/)

Not sure what this means, other than more people can collect, and that means the insolvency is now approaching sooner.

Lets hope the Congress can fix social security without all the continuing resolutions to fix the debt ceiling and the budget ever increasing spending

good luck to us!


Much of this is over my head but I have a good friend who was a firefighter for the City of Detroit. On occasion he was getting shot at because the people that started the fires didn’t want them put out! When he retired he trained himself as a Master Electrician and then worked for many years doing that and paying into Social Security. On top of that The City of Detroit went bankrupt and reduced his pension benefits. Why wouldn’t he be able to collect SS benefits for the second career during a different time period but he cannot. Would this new repeal allow him to now collect SS?

[Topspinmo]

And a VA Disability.


Not every service member get Va disability especially retired military. You have qualify and they usually reject majority. The big lie I was told for 20 years. Some know how to game the system.

[retiredguy123]

Much of this is over my head but I have a good friend who was a firefighter for the City of Detroit. On occasion he was getting shot at because the people that started the fires didn’t want them put out! When he retired he trained himself as a Master Electrician and then worked for many years doing that and paying into Social Security. On top of that The City of Detroit went bankrupt and reduced his pension benefits. Why wouldn’t he be able to collect SS benefits for the second career during a different time period but he cannot. Would this new repeal allow him to now collect SS?
If he paid into the system for at least 40 quarters, he should be collecting SS already, but the new law will increase the amount he receives.

[Topspinmo]

I worked as a firefighter fighting air plane fire, structure fire, NY TOWERS 1 AND 2 . I worked there for 44 years paying. I ALSO worked at a welding supply store for 34 years. I paid SS MY WELDING JOB . When I retired I was told I'm only getting 50 percent of what I was told collect BECAUSE I WAS A FIREFIGHTER. I got 753. I was penalized for firefighter ING. Do to this law congress put into effect. Now that the law is gone I get what I put 35 years into for SS.

They maybe cause you paid into fire fighter union retirement plan and didn’t pay SS for 44 years? no different than railroad workers or union school teachers.

[jabacon6669]

Senate passes Social Security bill to repeal WEP and GPO (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2024/12/senate-passes-social-security-bill-to-repeal-wep-and-gpo/)

Not sure what this means, other than more people can collect, and that means the insolvency is now approaching sooner.

Lets hope the Congress can fix social security without all the continuing resolutions to fix the debt ceiling and the budget ever increasing spending

good luck to us!

Let's remember that these folks contributed fully, just like everyone that recieves the full benefit. Yet they were only allowed under Reagan's law to get about 1/3 of their benefit. A very unfair act. Glad they finally changed it. And, no, I will not get anything under the new law.

[Topspinmo]

I only want to comment on one small part of this post - "the other thing it does is protect mostly WOMEN". To me that is a VERY GOOD thing because women typically earn only 70% of what a man does for the SAME job.

Also lot military wife’s have little chance for career due to having to move 4 or 5 times plus during military career. IMO for those wife’s (like officers wife’s that can collect 1/2 officers retirement if married more than 10 years made claims to same thing) enlisted wife when there spouse dies should get military retirement for there sacrifices for husband and government. Heck most wife’s are real hero’s IMO for putting up with all crap they had to endure raising children and having to move around world.

[Bill14564]

Let's remember that these folks contributed fully, just like everyone that recieves the full benefit. Yet they were only allowed under Reagan's law to get about 1/3 of their benefit. A very unfair act. Glad they finally changed it. And, no, I will not get anything under the new law.

For the sake of argument....

I contributed fully FOR MY ENTIRE CAREER while they contributed fully for 1/2 their career.

They are getting a pension for the time they did not pay into SS and partial SS in consideration that they only paid for 1/2 their career.

Either:
- The adjustment is fair so that those that paid only half their career do not receive twice the benefits of those that paid their entire career
OR
- I need to know who to talk to in order to get two SS checks - one for the first half of my career to match their pension and another for the second half of my career to match the SS they will now receive.

[Nell57]

WEP/GPO was only enacted in 15 states. Public employees in these states will now have the same federal benefits as the other 35 states.
Thats Fairness.

[Bill14564]

WEP/GPO was only enacted in 15 states. Public employees in these states will now have the same federal benefits as the other 35 states.
Thats Fairness.

WEP/GPO affects employees in ALL states. If anything, only 15 states had employees paying into state pension plans and NOT paying SS tax.

[retiredguy123]

WEP/GPO was only enacted in 15 states. Public employees in these states will now have the same federal benefits as the other 35 states.
Thats Fairness.
To clarify, the 15 states where the law was reacted only applied to non-Federal employees. But the WEP and GPO restrictions always applied to retired Federal employees in every state. So, if you are a retired Federal employee, you were subjected to the SS reductions mandated by the old law. The new law will affect Federal retirees in every state.

[Bilyclub]

Biden still hasn’t signed it yet. He has 10 non-Sunday days from the bill passage to sign it or it dies.

[retiredguy123]

Biden still hasn’t signed it yet. He has 10 non-Sunday days from the bill passage to sign it or it dies.
Correct, but I don't think the bill has been sent to him yet. The 10 days start when he receives the bill for signature.

[Nell57]

WEP/GPO affects employees in ALL states. If anything, only 15 states had employees paying into state pension plans and NOT paying SS tax.

My husband paid the maximum into SS for 30 years.
As his widow, who worked as a teacher 33 years , I received nothing the last eight years.
I will now get widow benefits.
The same benefit as retired teachers in the other 35 states have received all along.

[Bill14564]

My husband paid the maximum into SS for 30 years.
As his widow, who worked as a teacher 33 years , I received nothing the last eight years.
I will now get widow benefits.
The same benefit as retired teachers in the other 35 states have received all along.

The same benefit as EVERYONE who paid SS during their entire career have received all along.

It has nothing to do with which state you were in, if you did not pay SS during the time you earned a pension then you are affected by WEP and GPO.

[CybrSage]

This Act gives the rightfully earned fair benefit to those who earned it, regardless of whatever other career path they may have chosen over time.

Do they also pay the SS and Medicare Taxes the entire time they pay I to the other system?

[CybrSage]

Missing in this entire thread was who avoided paying social security taxes. It wasn’t the employee’s decision. They don’t get asked if they want to pay the taxes or not. It was the employer. Those state governments that avoided paying the taxes.

I was hoping the legislation would end any exemptions and every employer is required to pay into the system. One can pretend that employees pay half, but the reality is that the employer pays all of the FICA taxes.

I don't get asked either, but I pay my 6.5% as required by law, just like every other tax.

[retiredguy123]

Do they also pay the SS and Medicare Taxes the entire time they pay I to the other system?
GPO applies to the spouse benefit, and in many cases, reduces it to zero. There are millions of spouses, ex-spouses, widows, and widowers who never paid anything into the SS system, but they receive a SS check every month for life.

[CybrSage]

But with SS, we normals get hit for 15% of our income for a ponzi scheme that, by law, excuses anyone making over $110K from paying into.

The people making over the cutoff still pay up to the limit, then the tax stops. The max anyone can earn also stops. This is considered fair, not taxing someone more due to not giving them more of what the tax is taken to pay for.
The limits are also far higher than $110,000, it changes most very year.
2024: $168,600
2025: $176,100

[CybrSage]

GPO applies to the spouse benefit, and in many cases, reduces it to zero. There are millions of spouses, ex-spouses, widows, and widowers who never paid anything into the SS system, but they receive a SS check every month for life.

So the pensioner did not pay and people will still get money as if he/she did?
Not a bad deal, a nice 6.5% effective pay increase and still benefits.
Does the pensioner also get SS money, or only the spouse of the non-paying pensioner?

[retiredguy123]

So the pensioner did not pay and people will still get money as if he/she did?
Not a bad deal, a nice 6.5% effective pay increase and still benefits.
Does the pensioner also get SS money, or only the spouse of the non-paying pensioner?
I don't understand your post. If a worker receives $2,000 per month in SS income, his/her spouse receives $1,000 per month, and when the worker dies, the spouse receives $2,000 per month. The spouse doesn't need to contribute anything into the SS system to be eligible for this benefit.

[CybrSage]

I only want to comment on one small part of this post - "the other thing it does is protect mostly WOMEN". To me that is a VERY GOOD thing because women typically earn only 70% of what a man does for the SAME job.

That's been debunked many times.over, quite a while ago. But it is such a good sound note it keeps being told.
Just to put it to a real world logic test, we see it fails.
A CEO could save a lot of money and greatly boost profits by hiring all or mostly women. Same work, lower pay, right. But not a single company ever did it. That is because it is simply not true women get paid less than men for the same work.

The gender pay gap is often exaggerated or misrepresented, and there are many factors that contribute to it:
Factors that are not considered
The gender pay gap is often calculated by comparing the total salaries of men and women, without accounting for other important factors:
Occupation: Men and women are often employed in different types of jobs, which can contribute to the pay gap. Women choose flexible schedules over higher pay.
Hours worked: Men often work more hours than women, which can contribute to the pay gap.
Seniority: Women are less likely to occupy senior positions, which can contribute to lower pay.

[retiredguy123]

That's been debunked many times.over, quite a while ago. But it is such a good sound note it keeps being told.
Just to put it to a real world logic test, we see it fails.
A CEO could save a lot of money and greatly boost profits by hiring all or mostly women. Same work, lower pay, right. But not a single company ever did it. That is because it is simply not true women get paid less than men for the same work.

The gender pay gap is often exaggerated or misrepresented, and there are many factors that contribute to it:
Factors that are not considered
The gender pay gap is often calculated by comparing the total salaries of men and women, without accounting for other important factors:
Occupation: Men and women are often employed in different types of jobs, which can contribute to the pay gap. Women choose flexible schedules over higher pay.
Hours worked: Men often work more hours than women, which can contribute to the pay gap.
Seniority: Women are less likely to occupy senior positions, which can contribute to lower pay.
I totally agree. I would also add that women are still defined as a "socially and economically disadvantaged class" in the Federal Affirmative Action law and, as such, they are entitled to special treatment when applying for jobs and Government contracts. I have never heard of a single prominent woman in business or Government propose any change to this law.

[ElDiabloJoe]

20 years in the military, protecting the freedom of everyone who lives in the United States and risking death not to mention all the other personal sacrifices that our military people endure . Nothing is too good for the people who sacrifice and and protect you and everybody else in the United States.
^ Absolutely. Amen! FWIW, I am not a vet. My father was - he was in Okinawa from 1946-1947. Wish he had joined USAA though :(

[kkingston57]

If this law is enacted, I may be able to receive a spouse benefit from my ex-spouse's work record. This is based on the GPO (Government Pension Offset) rule that has totally eliminated my spouse benefit since I retired. I don't really need the extra income, but it will help to pay my huge Federal tax bill, which is higher than all of my living expenses combined.

If so, you did well in your business career. After thinking about it, we are in same situation as our retired cost of living has gone down a lot. No mortgage, smaller house, less work related driving, no work clothes, less lunches out.

[Topspinmo]

Have you served in the military? Otherwise, what are these statements based on?


I did and he’s right on especially enlisted which are treated like bottom crawlers.

[Topspinmo]

In my last position as a civilian Federal employee, the newly hired office head was a retired Colonel, who hired no one but retired military personnel. If you were a civilian trying to get promoted, forget about it. There was no way you would be considered. In 3 years, he hired about 10 retired military personnel. He would even bring in GS-14 employees at the step 10 level, when they were supposed to start at Step 1. Many of these jobs were hand crafted so no one else could qualify except the person he wanted to hire.

I think this practice is rampant in the D.C. area in agencies that are controlled by the military. I don't know about other Federal agencies.

It rampant everywhere with GS and WG employees


That way federal government hires nepotism runs rampant when locals get power to hire they friends and their friends hire their relatives seen this 100 times. Sure on paper all the rules are followed except the contact the have in personal office that qualifies applicants and qualifies people with connection and no experience. The system so big 70% coils be let go and nothing would change. Seen this for 40 years. You boss hired the way he seen if happen.

[Topspinmo]

FERS are not affected as they paid into SS. CSRS did not.


Employee pays into furs and government matches up to 5% or so. Accumulated in stock market over career. If you don’t pay in you don’t get much. Then, when you collect after retirement up to 1/3 taken for taxes depending on amount.

[biker1]

Perhaps. Federal Income Tax rates are marginal tax rates. You would need a sizable taxable income to have 1/3 taken for taxes (Federal taxes) as the highest marginal tax rate is 37%. For example, a taxable income of $1M would have an effective Federal tax rate of about 30%.


Employee pays into furs and government matches up to 5% or so. Accumulated in stock market over career. If you don’t pay in you don’t get much. Then, when you collect after retirement up to 1/3 taken for taxes depending on amount.

[Topspinmo]

Perhaps. Federal Income Tax rates are marginal tax rates. You would need a sizable taxable income to have 1/3 taken for taxes (Federal taxes) as the highest marginal tax rate is 37%. For example, a taxable income of $1M would have an effective Federal tax rate of about 30%.


I did that one year.

[Pugchief]

I did and he’s right on especially enlisted which are treated like bottom crawlers.

Okay.

But I wasn't asking you. I was asking JimJam who made the original statement to which I replied. My point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience versus hearsay.

[JMintzer]

I only want to comment on one small part of this post - "the other thing it does is protect mostly WOMEN". To me that is a VERY GOOD thing because women typically earn only 70% of what a man does for the SAME job.

Complete nonsense...

[JMintzer]

Have you served in the military? Otherwise, what are these statements based on?

He makes them up?

[allsport]

The better solution is to get rid of pensions for all govt employees (federal, state, municipal, county) and put them in a 401k type plan that the employer matches similarly to the private sector.

As far as SS is concerned, it prob makes sense to gradually move that away from the current ponzi structure toward a privatized system, while still honoring benefits to those who have paid in.

Neither of those things are a good solution. I worked for the government for 40 years and was in the original retirement system, a benefit that I looked at when deciding to stay in government. We were not comparably paid to the private sector but retirement was something that kept people in government. You are incorrect to think that current employees have government pensions, sometime in the 80's the retirement system was changed and they now have 401K's SS and a minor government pension. SS was enacted to assist people who are poor and do not have a retirement option. If you pay in, you should be able to collect no matter what other pension you have including the government pension. When my husband died I was denied my widow's pension because I had a federal pension. That would not have happened had I not been on government retirement. That is unfair as he paid into the system for way more than 40 quarters. He has been dead for 6 years and I am wondering if I will be able to back and get his money.

[Bill14564]

Neither of those things are a good solution. I worked for the government for 40 years and was in the original retirement system, a benefit that I looked at when deciding to stay in government. We were not comparably paid to the private sector but retirement was something that kept people in government. You are incorrect to think that current employees have government pensions, sometime in the 80's the retirement system was changed and they now have 401K's SS and a minor government pension. SS was enacted to assist people who are poor and do not have a retirement option. If you pay in, you should be able to collect no matter what other pension you have including the government pension. When my husband died I was denied my widow's pension because I had a federal pension. That would not have happened had I not been on government retirement. That is unfair as he paid into the system for way more than 40 quarters. He has been dead for 6 years and I am wondering if I will be able to back and get his money.

But you are collecting the govt pension you did pay into rather than the SS you did not pay onto.

If you were collecting SS instead of your pension then you would have to choose between your SS or the survivor benefit, whichever was larger - you would not collect both. How is that any different than having your survivor benefit reduced to zero today because your current pension is so much larger?

[Topspinmo]

Okay.

But I wasn't asking you. I was asking JimJam who made the original statement to which I replied. My point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience versus hearsay.


I was enlisted for 20 years. Is that live enough experience for you?

[Pugchief]

Okay.

But I wasn't asking you. I was asking JimJam who made the original statement to which I replied. My point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience versus hearsay.

I was enlisted for 20 years. Is that live enough experience for you?



I had said "okay" meaning I acknowledge your statement and don't dispute it.

Again, and I don't know how I can be any clearer, my point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience of another poster versus hearsay.

[FFlank]

The current timeline, for anyone who is keeping track, is as follows:
The act was presented to President Biden on 12/27.
The ten day period for the President to act starts today (12/28), the day after it's presented.
Sundays are excluded from the calculation, so the 10th day falls on Monday, January 8.
So...what happens on or before January 8?
If the President signs it, it becomes law.
If the President vetos it, it goes back to congress, which can attempt to override the veto.
If the President takes no action AND congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law.
If the President takes no action and congress adjourns during this period, the bill will probably become a "pocket" veto and it won't become law.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I had said "okay" meaning I acknowledge your statement and don't dispute it.

Again, and I don't know how I can be any clearer, my point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience of another poster versus hearsay.

So you don't dispute Top's statement. His undisputed statement is in agreement with Jimjam's statement.

Seems like Jimjam's source is irrelevant at this point, you've already acknowledged the claim itself, and have chosen not to dispute it.

Unless you just want to tweak Jimjam because you think he makes a good target?

[Bill14564]

So you don't dispute Top's statement. His undisputed statement is in agreement with Jimjam's statement.

Seems like Jimjam's source is irrelevant at this point, you've already acknowledged the claim itself, and have chosen not to dispute it.

Unless you just want to tweak Jimjam because you think he makes a good target?

I don't read it that way at all. Pug acknowledged Top's agreement with Jim's statement based on Top's lived experience. That makes *one* personal experience.

Jim's claim is still hearsay unless Jim himself has personal experience. Those who have spent time on these forums have reason to be skeptical. We're still at *one* personal experience.

Before accepting Jim's blanket assessment/accusation as anything but regurgitation of a common stereotype, it is reasonable to ask whether he has personal experience, making it *two* personal experiences, or if his statement was just hearsay.

[Pugchief]

I don't read it that way at all. Pug acknowledged Top's agreement with Jim's statement based on Top's lived experience. That makes *one* personal experience.

Jim's claim is still hearsay unless Jim himself has personal experience. Those who have spent time on these forums have reason to be skeptical. We're still at *one* personal experience.

Before accepting Jim's blanket assessment/accusation as anything but regurgitation of a common stereotype, it is reasonable to ask whether he has personal experience, making it *two* personal experiences, or if his statement was just hearsay.

Thanks, couldn't have said it better.

[bmcgowan13]

My husband worked for the VA and is collecting a pension, which he paid into, from there. He also worked many part time jobs and paid into social security. Currently he gets 1/3. Of money he paid into social security. Is that fair, no.

Exactly. I worked over 30 years for a federal pension. I also worked part-time as police and paid into Social Security for 20 years--I paid the SAME amount into Social Security as everyone else at my PD. My weekly SS contributions were NOT reduced because I also paid into CSRS.

I earned a stipend of $1,089 per month from Social Security. But since I started collecting at full retirement age they have reduced my SS payment by $547 per month--simply because I am receiving a federal pension. I get $542 per month. To me--that is not fair. I did NOT pay a reduced amount for my Social Security--I paid the same as everyone else.

My wife collects a pension from her NY Hospital. AND she gets her entire Social Security every month. Is this different?

The GPO/WEP was enacted to have federal employees help bail out SS.

This is a great explanation:

GPO WEP EXPLAINED VIDEO - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=GPO+WEP+EXPLAINED+VIDEO&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1093US1093&oq=GPO+WEP+EXPLAINED+VIDEO&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIR igATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigAdIBCDU1MTFqMGo3qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:538d7fd8,vid:5gnY04SPCMQ,st:0)

[Bill14564]

Exactly. I worked over 30 years for a federal pension. I also worked part-time as police and paid into Social Security for 20 years--I paid the SAME amount into Social Security as everyone else at my PD. My weekly SS contributions were NOT reduced because I also paid into CSRS.

I earned a stipend of $1,089 per month from Social Security. But since I started collecting at full retirement age they have reduced my SS payment by $547 per month--simply because I am receiving a federal pension. I get $542 per month. To me--that is not fair. I did NOT pay a reduced amount for my Social Security--I paid the same as everyone else.

My wife collects a pension from her NY Hospital. AND she gets her entire Social Security every month. Is this different?

The GPO/WEP was enacted to have federal employees help bail out SS.

This is a great explanation:

...

With 109 posts it is hard to read them all but here is a short recap...

- While you were paying into the pension you WERE NOT paying into SS. Your wife paid into her pension AND SS. THAT is what is different. She paid into SS her entire career, you did not.

- Your pension was intended to replace SS and that is what it is doing. Whatever pension you are receiving is replacing $547 of the SS you would have received IF YOU HAD PAID INTO SS DURING THOSE YEARS.

- I paid into SS for 40 years. Can I divide that by two and ask for two full SS checks? Of course not, I get ONE SS check for the entire 40 years. You worked 40 years (or so) and are receiving a full pension for the time you DID NOT PAY SS plus a partial benefit for the time you did pay SS - you are already receiving more benefits than your wife or me.

- The math behind WEP is based on the way replacement salary is calculated for SS. 100% of the lowest $X of salary is replaced followed by a lower percentage of higher amounts. Your pension is replacing at least 100% of your lowest salary so WEP recalculates your benefit taking that into account. Again, this is because you did not contribute to SS while you were earning your pension.

- You should be grateful WEP left as much as it did. With most straight-SS calculations, benefits like spousal or survivor aren't reduced, they are completely eliminate - you receive 100% of one benefit and 0% of the other.

But in the end, all the above is moot if the bill gets signed. (perhaps it has been already)

[retiredguy123]

The latest news is that the President will sign the bill into law on January 6, 2025.

[retiredguy123]

With 109 posts it is hard to read them all but here is a short recap...

- While you were paying into the pension you WERE NOT paying into SS. Your wife paid into her pension AND SS. THAT is what is different. She paid into SS her entire career, you did not.

- Your pension was intended to replace SS and that is what it is doing. Whatever pension you are receiving is replacing $547 of the SS you would have received IF YOU HAD PAID INTO SS DURING THOSE YEARS.

- I paid into SS for 40 years. Can I divide that by two and ask for two full SS checks? Of course not, I get ONE SS check for the entire 40 years. You worked 40 years (or so) and are receiving a full pension for the time you DID NOT PAY SS plus a partial benefit for the time you did pay SS - you are already receiving more benefits than your wife or me.

- The math behind WEP is based on the way replacement salary is calculated for SS. 100% of the lowest $X of salary is replaced followed by a lower percentage of higher amounts. Your pension is replacing at least 100% of your lowest salary so WEP recalculates your benefit taking that into account. Again, this is because you did not contribute to SS while you were earning your pension.

- You should be grateful WEP left as much as it did. With most straight-SS calculations, benefits like spousal or survivor aren't reduced, they are completely eliminate - you receive 100% of one benefit and 0% of the other.

But in the end, all the above is moot if the bill gets signed. (perhaps it has been already)
Nice recap, but you only addressed half of the bill, the WEP. The other half is the GPO, or Government Pension Offset. Since I retired, I have received no Social Security "spouse" benefit because my Government pension totally offset any spouse benefit that other spouses are receiving. Also, I receive no SS benefit for work I performed because I did not have a 40 quarter SS work record. With the new law, I will be able to apply for a spouse benefit based on my former spouse's income. I will receive an amount equal to half of her SS monthly benefit, and if she dies before me, my monthly benefit will double. This benefit will be retroactive for the entire year of 2024. This could be thousands of dollars in income per year because she was a high-income earner.

[Bill14564]

Nice recap, but you only addressed half of the bill, the WEP. The other half is the GPO, or Government Pension Offset. Since I retired, I have received no Social Security "spouse" benefit because my Government pension totally offset any spouse benefit that other spouses are receiving. Also, I receive no SS benefit for work I performed because I did not have a 40 quarter SS work record. With the new law, I will be able to apply for a spouse benefit based on my former spouse's income. I will receive an amount equal to half of her SS monthly benefit, and if she dies before me, my monthly benefit will double. This benefit will be retroactive for the entire year of 2024. This could be thousands of dollars in income per year because she was a high-income earner.

I intended to address GPO when I wrote:
- You should be grateful WEP left as much as it did. With most straight-SS calculations, benefits like spousal or survivor aren't reduced, they are completely eliminate - you receive 100% of one benefit and 0% of the other.

If I understand it correctly, GPO subtracts 2/3 of the amount of your pension from the spousal or survivor benefit you are applying for and gives you the rest. If your pension is 50% greater than the benefit then it would reduce the benefit to zero. So you get either:
- A reduced SS survivor or spousal benefit if it is more than 67% of your pension
- Zero SS because your pension is 50% greater than the SS benefit

Someone who has paid SS their entire career will collect either their own benefit or the spousal or the survivor, whichever is greater. There is no reduction by 2/3 of benefit they are currently receiving, they just collect whichever single benefit is greater.

You paid into your pension without paying SS.
I paid into SS.

Today, you will receive your pension plus that portion of the spousal benefit greater than 2/3 your pension
Today, I will receive my SS OR the spousal benefit, whichever is greater, but I will only receive ONE.

If your spouse passes, you will receive your pension plus that portion of the survivor benefit greater than 2/3 your pension
If my spouse passes I will receive my SS OR the survivor benefit, whichever is greater, but I will only receive ONE.

There is the potential today for you to make out better than I will even with WEP and GPO reductions.

What you would like is to collect your pension PLUS the spousal and later your pension PLUS the survivor.

What I would like is to collect my SS PLUS the spousal and later my SS PLUS the survivor.

If this bill is signed, one of us will get what they want and you will be even better off than I am.

[retiredguy123]

Personally, I don't think the spouse benefit has ever been fair. Someone who never paid into the system should not receive a monthly check. But, millions of spouses are receiving a check based on their spouse's work record. Now, I will be one of them.

[Bill14564]

Personally, I don't think the spouse benefit has ever been fair. Someone who never paid into the system should not receive a monthly check. But, millions of spouses are receiving a check based on their spouse's work record. Now, I will be one of them.

I don't disagree entirely but the spousal benefit might have been a way to actually save money.

What if it was determined that the benefit was not enough to cover a husband & wife when only one had worked? Perhaps the benefit needed to increase to 150% in order to serve its intended purpose. But times change and the single-earner families were becoming fewer as spouses began working also.

If they increased the benefit to 150% because of the single-earners then the two-earner families would be getting 300% (two benefits at 150% each).

On the other hand, if they kept the benefit at 100% but allowed a non-working spouse to collect a 50% spousal then single-earner families would get 150% while two-earner families would get 200%. This is slightly more for the two-earners but significantly less than the other option. To reduce the 200% further would require a discussion about double-dipping and fairness, similar to the discussion that led to this thread.

So perhaps the spousal benefit was a way to provide the level of benefit a single-earner family would need while saving money on two-earner families.

[Topspinmo]

Personally, I don't think the spouse benefit has ever been fair. Someone who never paid into the system should not receive a monthly check. But, millions of spouses are receiving a check based on their spouse's work record. Now, I will be one of them.

When you turn 65 you get SS whether you paid into it or not. Some spouses never had opportunities to work or have successful career. Beside SS was meant for poor or lower middle class.

[retiredguy123]

When you turn 65 you get SS whether you paid into it or not. Some spouses never had opportunities to work or have successful career. Beside SS was meant for poor or lower middle class.
I didn't get SS when I turned 65. I just got Medicare, Part A because I paid into it.

[Pugchief]

When you turn 65 you get SS whether you paid into it or not. Some spouses never had opportunities to work or have successful career. Beside SS was meant for poor or lower middle class.

False. You have to contribute for 40 quarters in order to collect SS.

[GoldenBoy]

I was enlisted for 20 years. Is that live enough experience for you?

I'm sorry, I guess I have been misunderstanding Talk of the Villages for the last 10 years. Does anybody read this for any reason than the entertainment value?

[bagboy]

The latest, The Social Security Fairness Act will be signed tomorrow, Sunday January 5th, at 4 pm est.

[Topspinmo]

False. You have to contribute for 40 quarters in order to collect SS.

Correct I was confused with SSI.

[Topspinmo]

When you turn 65 you get SS whether you paid into it or not. Some spouses never had opportunities to work or have successful career. Beside SS was meant for poor or lower middle class.

I was corrected it’s SSI can get without working a day at 65.

[jpvillager]

Easy SS fix. Pay back all the money the federal government borrowed/took from SS.

[Topspinmo]

Easy SS fix. Pay back all the money the federal government borrowed/took from SS.


Why? they get more by collecting it. :censored:

[retiredguy123]

Update: The Social Security Fairness Act has now been signed into law.

[REDCART]

Easy SS fix. Pay back all the money the federal government borrowed/took from SS.

As I understand the issue. The US Gvt borrowed and repaid the funds it borrowed from the SS Trust funds. The scandal, for lack of a better name, was that the US Gvt borrowed these funds at less than the prevailing rate of interest. You think there was a slight conflict of interest? Would the difference in the interest rate have made a serious difference?

[ElDiabloJoe]

As I understand the issue. The US Gvt borrowed and repaid the funds it borrowed from the SS Trust funds. The scandal, for lack of a better name, was that the US Gvt borrowed these funds at less than the prevailing rate of interest. You think there was a slight conflict of interest? Would the difference in the interest rate have made a serious difference?
Yes, the difference would make a difference. That loss of interest (let's say they paid $3 back in interest instead of the market rate of $5) would compound for years and years and years and would become very significant. Remember, SS is a long-term game, not an overnight loan.

[retiredguy123]

I applied for benefits under this new law, and it was approved within 10 days. Apparently, I will be immediately receiving 6 months of back pay from the application date and a regular monthly check starting in February. But, the SS representative said that the current law only allows the payments to be retroactive for 6 months back, even though the new law requires retroactive payments for 12 months back to December, 2023. I never submitted an application for spouse benefits because I knew that the GPO (Government Pension Offset) would totally wipe out any benefits. So, it sounds like they are applying the new law, but not the retroactivity that was included in it. Hopefully, the Government will correct this discrepancy between the current law and the new law. I would appreciate any additional information that anyone has about this issue.

[Topspinmo]

As I understand the issue. The US Gvt borrowed and repaid the funds it borrowed from the SS Trust funds. The scandal, for lack of a better name, was that the US Gvt borrowed these funds at less than the prevailing rate of interest. You think there was a slight conflict of interest? Would the difference in the interest rate have made a serious difference?

Federal government won’t pay interest on federal money nor are there any penalties. On the other hand the tax payers one that suffer.

[dhsmith]

Due we have to apply to SS Administration under this new law or will SS Administration automatically update our records and start paying what we’re due?

[retiredguy123]

Due we have to apply to SS Administration under this new law or will SS Administration automatically update our records and start paying what we’re due?
I think that, If you are already receiving benefits, your benefits will automatically increase. But, if you have never applied for benefits, you must apply.

[Normal]

As I understand the issue. The US Gvt borrowed and repaid the funds it borrowed from the SS Trust funds. The scandal, for lack of a better name, was that the US Gvt borrowed these funds at less than the prevailing rate of interest. You think there was a slight conflict of interest? Would the difference in the interest rate have made a serious difference?

The money was borrowed, but never actually returned. It started in 1965 to help pay for the Vietnamese war. It’s kind of like your kids borrowing money, in most cases don’t expect it back. Currently the US government owes almost 3 trillion to the fund.

[biker1]

You are essentially correct. Treasury has issued special T-Bills to the SSA because FICA tax revenue exceeded benefits paid until recently. This is often referred to as the Trust Fund and currently has a value of about $2.8T. SSA began cashing in those T-Bills around 2021, when benefits paid exceeded FICA tax revenue. The Trust Fund will be exhausted around 2033 and benefits will decrease by about 23% as that is the level that can be supported by only incoming FICA taxes. Any suggestion that Treasury isn't going to pay back the Trust Fund is incorrect. Another way to look at the situation is that Treasury has permission to go out on the global markets and borrow $2.8T to provide funds to the SSA as they draw down the Trust Fund. This is obviously a less than ideal situation.

The money was borrowed, but never actually returned. It started in 1965 to help pay for the Vietnamese war. It’s kind of like your kids borrowing money, in most cases don’t expect it back. Currently the US government owes almost 3 trillion to the fund.

[Nell57]

I applied for benefits under this new law, and it was approved within 10 days. Apparently, I will be immediately receiving 6 months of back pay from the application date and a regular monthly check starting in February. But, the SS representative said that the current law only allows the payments to be retroactive for 6 months back, even though the new law requires retroactive payments for 12 months back to December, 2023. I never submitted an application for spouse benefits because I knew that the GPO (Government Pension Offset) would totally wipe out any benefits. So, it sounds like they are applying the new law, but not the retroactivity that was included in it. Hopefully, the Government will correct this discrepancy between the current law and the new law. I would appreciate any additional information that anyone has about this issue.

How did you apply? I was rejected in the past….i guess I need to re-apply now that GPO was repealed.

[retiredguy123]

How did you apply? I was rejected in the past….i guess I need to re-apply now that GPO was repealed.
I completed the application online at SSA.gov.