Social Security Bill passes for Federal Employees
 

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Right?
 

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?

forbes explains why....
 

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.

gpo forbes....
 

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.

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?

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...

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.

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

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.

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

Not so fast
 

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!

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.

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.

Might want add unfunded teachers union also:22yikes:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Information
 

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.

When does it start

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.