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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

^ Absolutely. Amen! FWIW, I am not a vet. My father was - he was in Okinawa from 1946-1947. Wish he had joined USAA though :(

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Complete nonsense...

He makes them up?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Thanks, couldn't have said it better.

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Wait a minute...
 

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?

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