Congress Pushes to Get Rid of Social Security Windfall Provisions
Category: Social Security
November 18, 2024. Bipartisan legislation that would repeal two provisions of Social Security easily passed last week in the House of Representatives. Current SS policies curtail benefits to about 2.8 million workers. The provisions that would be eliminated are the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset. Currently many workers in the public sector who receive pensions from their jobs, such as teachers and firemen who receive other pensions, do not get their full Social Security benefits.
The bill has many supporters. It passed in the House and now moves on to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. President Biden has said he will sign it into law if it passes. People who worked in government jobs in municipalities, states, and the federal civil service have been hurt by the policies.
The cost of the expansion would be considerable, adding about $195 billion to the deficit. It would also speed up the date by which the Social Security Trust Funds are depleted, currently estimated at 2035. Many conservative members of Congress oppose the legislation.
If the bill is not approved by Congress by Jan. 4 it will have to be completed restarted in the new Congress.
Comments? Have you been affected by either the WEP or Gov’t. Pension Offset? Do you think this bill has a chance of going into law? Please let us know in the Comments section below.
Comments on "Congress Pushes to Get Rid of Social Security Windfall Provisions"
Karen Magnuson says:
As a retired teacher of 35 years who always had to have a second job and still do at the age of 69. It is not fair that I am not receiving my full Social Security Benefit. I hope the lawmakers in the Senate will open their minds and realize people like me are not going to be able to work forever. I need that money which will also help me contribute back to the economy as I buy goods and services.
Donna Neese says:
As a retired Rn I do not get my full SS benefit. I also can't claim anything under my deceased husband of 55 years. I feel this is discrimination to many of us, most of us women earning less ,especially back in those days.
Cathy says:
I am a retired teacher in Ga and because my pension and the reduced amount of SS ; I have to work to pay my bills..
Patricia Reynolds says:
I feel anything that depletes the fund earlier is detrimental to too many of us that don't have other pension funds to draw on.
Nancy Poniewaz says:
Finally! Those who paid a SS tax along with their employer had a contract with the government that they broke. We were taxed on the income we made to pay the SS tax, and the. Taxed again when we retired on our SS. Yet the govt claims WE were dbl dipping??? This has been unfair especially to women.
Diane Foster says:
I worked 20 years in private sector in which my employer and I both paid into SS. Then I started another career with the school district which I worked almost 20 years. Became of the WEP I’ve been cheated out of my full benefits from my first 20 years. Along with that, I’m 73 years old and singke and my income is a poverty level. What a shame, that in America, a senior citizen, who worked since they were 16 years old would have to be in a position to struggle in their golden years because this law is cheating them out of their full retirement benefits.
Theresa Halter says:
As a retired support staff employee for 28 years in NV who worked for 15 years in the private sector in NJ paying into social security before relocating and taking a government job in education I feel like this is money I contributed and am now being denied. This is unfair to people who work in public service. We anticipated receiving social security but upon retirement were denied.
dan says:
I am very thankful to NOT be impacted by this.
However, I am a bit confused.
Wouldn't a teacher or first responder who worked their entire career in a WEP state also be exempt from contributing 6.2% of their income every year for the course of their career?
If the law were to be changed, would those folks then have to contribute retroactively in order to be eligible for the benefits?
LS says:
Dan: It is not the state that is impacting the receipt of SS. The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO) are Federal Laws that impact certain people who are in receipt of pensions where they did not contribute to SS. These people may have had other employment where they were subject to FICA deductions for SS. These individuals may or may not have had to contribute funds to these pensions but not to FICA. No, they do not have to retroactively contribute to FICA for work subject to those pensions even if this law is passed. Their SS amount is based only on their employment that was subject to FICA withholding.
You are correct that the laws are confusing but there is a reason for them. The SS formula for determining the amount of the SS benefit is weighted to provide a greater benefit for people who earned less during their working careers while subject to FICA withholding. The WEP reasoning is that people who earned less under FICA withholding but who also have a pension that was not subject to FICA withholding are getting a "Windfall" because of the way the SS formula is structured. Similarly, the GPO can impact the spousal SS benefit. Spousal SS benefits are meant to provide for spouses who may not have worked during their lifetime in employment subject to FICA withholding. At the time the SS law was enacted, that was the case for most female spouses. The GPO is meant to address the cases where spouses have pensions that were not subject to FICA withholding. The reasoning is that these government pensions can be much greater than the amount of the spousal SS benefit and thus, the spousal benefit is not necessary.
John O Hutchins says:
I have worked as a teacher for the past 40 years and have just retired. I also worked part time and paid into social security. I have my required number of quarters that I paid into SS. I get both SS and my teacher retirement. I don’t know why other teachers are being denied if they have contributed to social security. My wife also just retired from teaching and also receives SS benefits in addition to teacher retirement. She retired from California and Alaska as I did.
Nancy says:
John, there are only 13 states affected by the windfall act. Nevada is one of them. My SS was reduced, and I will receive 0 from my husband. I was a clerk in a school district. Many women filled these jobs, many were only 9 mos so their pension is small to begin with. This really hurts the lower level jobs in these states if you work in a govt job and also have 40 quarters in SS with a private sector job. Both are under contracts which this law is breaking. The govt wrongly claims that a state job pension is government, tho we paid no SS with them. But if you paid elsewhere, claiming another govt job which sb federal, govt claims you are double dipping. EX. USPO pays a pension and employee pays into SS, along with the PO paying into SS for you also. Is that not double dipping? Federal govt jobs pay into SS get pensions also. Again, it is a contract with both parties, that the govt has broken. We are entitled to our SS and the employer paid pension according to these contracts. I hope this makes sense. Just to add the govt has no problem paying to support millions of illegals over their citizens.
Cynthia Dilorenzo says:
No only is the WEP and GPO unfair to Senior citizens but Federal employees are exempt from having their SS benefits cut if they receive a government pension while so many of us local government employees will only receive 50% of our SS benefits.
Admin says:
The saga in the Senate continues. There is some significant Republican opposition to the bill, including firebrand Sen. Rand Paul, who is calling for raising the retirement age to 70 to pay for it. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5045437-senate-battle-social-security-benefits/?