Senate Tees Up $200 Billion Social Security Giveaway to Public Sector Workers
The Social Security Fairness Act will boost payouts to public sector workers who receive pensions and did not pay taxes to support Social Security.

The Senate is reportedly set to vote on a bill boosting Social Security payouts to public sector workers who receive pensions and did not pay taxes to support Social Security while working in the public sector*.
If it passes, the proposal will cost nearly $200 billion and will hasten the insolvency of Social Security for all beneficiaries—the vast majority of which do not have a taxpayer-funded pension to rely upon.
A final vote on the Social Security Fairness Act is expected this week, and possibly as soon as Monday. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) told reporters last week that he is urging senators to back the proposal. With 62 cosponsors in the Senate, the bill has a good chance at passing. The House's version of the bill passed by a wide margin earlier this year, so a Senate vote could send it to President Joe Biden's desk.
The Social Security Fairness Act would eliminate two existing provisions that reduce Social Security benefits for some workers (and their spouses) who do not pay Social Security taxes as a condition of their public sector jobs*: the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO).
The WEP was implemented as part of the 1983 overhaul of Social Security, and for good reason. Before that, some public workers who paid little into Social Security during their careers would end up collecting relatively large Social Security benefits. The GPO applies to the spouses of those same public workers.
Eliminating the WEP and the GPO will cost $195 billion over the next 10 years, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of the bill. That's because this change will obligate the payment of more Social Security benefits to people who are not paying into the system.
The CBO also projects that Social Security will be insolvent—that is, unable to pay full promised benefits—within just nine years. So using the typical 10-year budget window to assess the cost of this maneuver is a bit overly optimistic.
"It is truly astonishing that at a time when we are just nine years away from the trust fund for the nation's largest program being completely exhausted, lawmakers are about to consider speeding that up by six months," Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a press release. "Even worse is that repealing WEP and GPO does nothing to address the windfalls they are intended to eliminate—instead, it just restores windfalls for folks who have other government pensions. What an incredulous set of events."
MacGuineas' group estimates that repealing the WEP and GPO would end up costing the average couple more than $25,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits. That's because it will accelerate the mandatory across-the-board benefit cuts that will be implemented when the program hits insolvency.
In short: By allowing public workers to double-dip into retirement benefits they did not contribute towards, this bill will make everyone who did pay for Social Security worse off.
In broad strokes, this is a fundamental flaw with any retirement system where individuals do not have control over their own accounts—which is true for both Social Security and most pension systems. In such an arrangement, certain groups will always have incentives to snatch a larger slice of the collective pie.
There are few entities better organized to manipulate the political system in that way than public sector unions. Groups representing retired teachers and other public employees have been lobbying Congress for the change.
Even if you think there's something fundamentally unfair about the existing WEP and GPO rules, the proper time for Congress to address those shortcomings would be as part of a complete overhaul of Social Security aimed at solving the looming insolvency issue and providing retirement security for all Americans—including those who would prefer to opt out of Social Security entirely.
Instead, Congress is set to pass a special handout to a politically connected group while leaving Social Security on even shakier ground.
*CLARIFICATION: This piece has been updated to clarify that the WEP rules only apply to public sector work. Workers who also earned income through private sector jobs paid Social Security taxes and may qualify for Social Security benefits.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So democrats literally passing a windfall?
How about a small amendment to require a 200% windfall tax on the payouts?
How we have not rounded up the democrats and executed the lot of them by now is mystifying.
Yes, you two morons.
This is all the Democrats fault yet it has already passed the Republican controlled House and has 62 Senate co-sponsors. .
Both parties suck you two faggoty Trump Cultists.
Faggoty? So feisty!
They both suck the same orange cock.
^ pedophile.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
All the Rs on that cosponsor list were the anti trumpers retard lol.
like J.D. Vance?
Yet somehow the [D] 80% to [R] 20% exists.
Sure, sure "the same".... same, same... /s
Are you always this retarded, or is today just special?
i thought the term was funny. adding it to my patois
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Look at the few Rs who are cosponsors. All the ones I criticize, all the ones you say are the good ones.
Weird.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/597/cosponsors
The same good conservatives jeffsarc likes too.
So, the RINO squishes.
Correct.
I did see that J.D. Vance was one of the co-signers, though. That's disappointing.
Yep; Me too that RINO P.O.S.
2 years ago. Pretty sure jd was still talking against Trump at that point, aligning more with GOPe.
January 2022: “I’m not gonna hide from the fact that I did not see Trump’s promise in the beginning but you know, he delivered,” Vance said. “He delivered, and he cared about people. And I think that’s important. It’s important (to) change your mind.”
Sept. 2023: joined as cosponsor of "Social Security 'Fairness' Act"
Indeed. These leftist shitweasels condemn us based on the republicans THEY support. While all of us are on record condemning the RINOs.
Faggot? No, you’re the one who likes to sodomize little boys. And just because some RINO shitbags sign on to your democrat evil doesn’t really make it ‘Boaf sidez’.
Romney and his ilk don’t count.
There’s the homophobia we’ve all come to expect from you shrike.
And yet he prefers small boys.
How about forcing them to pay back taxes on all of the years they didn’t pay social security taxes. Adjusted for inflation of course.
That would be functionally equivalent to charging people back taxes for all the years they had NO taxable income.
A lot of independents and republicans voted for this bill as well.
And anyway, the true "windfall" is and has always been republicans tax cuts for the wealthy, oil companies, etc.
That word doesn't mean what you think it does.
When you set up a progressive tax system, the people that see the most benefit in breaks are typically those who pay the most. How you leftist morons still can’t grasp that is beyond normal people.
And I love that you morons know that companies pass costs like tariffs (import tax) on to consumers, but go fucking stupid when it comes to domestic taxes. News flash dipshit, those get passed on to the consumer through higher prices too.
Literally nothing left to cut.
a bill boosting Social Security payouts to public sector workers who receive pensions and did not pay taxes to support Social Security.
That is false.
some public workers who paid little into Social Security during their careers would end up collecting relatively large Social Security benefits.
False.
this change will obligate the payment of more Social Security benefits to people who are not paying into the system.
Some of them aren't CURRENTLY paying into the system, but they DID pay into the system enough to qualify for benefits.
retirement benefits they did not contribute towards
False. Go read the fucking bill and try again.
Or you could summarize it.
The summary is literally them striking portions of the 1983 bill. He didn't read it.
"a bill boosting Social Security payouts to public sector workers who receive pensions and did not pay taxes to support Social Security."
To clarify- Some public sector workers paid into social security when they had non government jobs so these workers did pay for some years. During their years working for the government they did not pay into SS.
The bill eliminating WEP and GPO will boosting Social Security payouts to public sector workers who receive pensions and did not pay taxes to support Social Security during their years in the public sector. TRUE
Thanks.
boosting Social Security payouts
"Boosting" them to the same amount that anyone else who had the same covered earnings would receive.
Are you a moron? Read the article!!!
The article is BS.
Totally agree.
Here is the text. It literally repeals the 83 reform.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/597/text
Here is who it covers in the reform.
(1) all Federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984; (2) the President; (3) the Vice President; (4) all elected officials and political appointees; (5) judges; (6) Members of Congress; and (7) all legislative branch employees who are not participating in the Civil Service Retirement System as of December 31, 1983.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/1900
So maybe tell us why this bill is good instead of just saying false.
Is the government paying the FICA portions of their salary into the "tax fund?" Have they had 12.4% removed from their paychecks? The employees don't even truly pay into their own pensions.
Fuck then all. Just locusts.
I’m gonna say it again, they want pre-Milei Argentina. Hyperinflation and collapse
Inflation rates doubled as soon as Milei took office. The previous regime was terrible and he is even worse.
You have a citation for that, dip?
Incorrect. From the Economist 11/30/24: "There has been a bonfire of red tape, liberating markets from housing rentals to airlines. The results are encouraging. Inflation has fallen from 13% month on month to 3%. Investors’ assessment of the risk of default has halved. A battered economy is showing signs of recovery."
Charlie is a true believer. You’ll never convince him that free markets are good.
What a shallow and stupid take on what happened. It was a devaluation of the currency, if I recall correctly. Which is a bit different as it corrects an unsustainable policy of the old regime.
You’re really angry to see Marxists driven from office, aren’t you?
Have they had 12.4% removed from their paychecks?
Yes, for all their private employment subject to FICA.
Congress passed the WEP to prevent workers who receive non-covered pensions from receiving higher Social Security benefits as if they were long-time, low-wage earners. b In 2022, the WEP applied to 3.1 percent of all beneficiaries (2.01 million beneficiaries out of 65.99 million total beneficiaries).
HOW THE WEP WORKS: Social Security benefits are calculated by applying three different percentages to a person's lifetime average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) and adding them up to obtain the worker's monthly benefit (primary insurance amount (PIA)) at full retirement age. For most beneficiaries in 2024, the PIA equals the sum of:
90 percent of the first $1,174 of AIME, plus
32 percent of AIME over $1,174 and through $7,078, plus
15 percent of AIME over $7,078.
The WEP PIA replicates the regular PIA but scales down the first percentage from 90 percent to 40 percent in increments of five percentage points for workers with less than 30 years of coverage (YOCs). Thus, workers with 30 or more YOCs have a first PIA factor of 90 percent, workers with 21–29 YOCs have a first PIA factor between 45–85 percent, and workers with 20 YOCs have a first PIA factor of 40 percent.
However, the difference between the regular PIA and the WEP PIA cannot exceed one-half of the monthly non-covered pension. This provision is known as the WEP guarantee and results in a smaller WEP reduction to the Social Security benefit than otherwise would have applied.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/program-explainers/windfall-elimination-provision.html
Absolutely correct. It would have been nice if the original article or follow up had explained this but when you start from and preach to those who don't want Social Security to exist at all, then this is the kind of article you get and the rest;onses from those who don't need Social Security anyway
It’s just not that hard. Some government workers do not pay SS taxes because they have their own pension system. Since they do not pay into SS, they also receive no SS benefits for any money earned in these jobs. However, they may also have other income that was earned either before getting their govt. job, after they retired from their govt job, or from a second outside job they had at the same time they were employed with the government. They do pay SS taxes on these incomes but WEP and GPO reduces their SS benefits because they had a government job that did not pay into SS. The SS fairness act will repeal both the WEP and GPO and treat these workers the same as everyone else, with regard to SS benefits. Plain and simple.
It should be plain and simple, but some commenters apparently suffer Public Employee Derangement Syndrome.
Fuck then all. Just locusts.
Yeah. Right.
If I understand Jesse’s quoted part correctly, this is less about Congress doing something for pubsec workers and more about giveaway to themselves and their lackeys.
It is not a giveaway - repealing these laws will treat government workers like everyone else, with regard to their earned SS benefits.
I’m specifically focused on these:
“(2) the President; (3) the Vice President; (4) all elected officials and political appointees; (5) judges; (6) Members of Congress; and”
You’re gonna tell me that the people who get to live off of our taxes for years, if not decades, decided they should get more SS when they retire from “public service” and it’s not a giveaway to themselves? Some of those listed get paid for life after “retirement”.
(I put retirement in air quotes because it’s not like they disappear into the wilderness, they’re running around doing speech tours and book deals.)
At this point most knew what the deal was when they took the government job and accepted it.
Congress passed the WEP to prevent workers who receive non-covered pensions from receiving higher Social Security benefits as if they were long-time, low-wage earners. b In 2022, the WEP applied to 3.1 percent of all beneficiaries (2.01 million beneficiaries out of 65.99 million total beneficiaries).
HOW THE WEP WORKS: Social Security benefits are calculated by applying three different percentages to a person's lifetime average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) and adding them up to obtain the worker's monthly benefit (primary insurance amount (PIA)) at full retirement age. For most beneficiaries in 2024, the PIA equals the sum of:
90 percent of the first $1,174 of AIME, plus
32 percent of AIME over $1,174 and through $7,078, plus
15 percent of AIME over $7,078.
The WEP PIA replicates the regular PIA but scales down the first percentage from 90 percent to 40 percent in increments of five percentage points for workers with less than 30 years of coverage (YOCs). Thus, workers with 30 or more YOCs have a first PIA factor of 90 percent, workers with 21–29 YOCs have a first PIA factor between 45–85 percent, and workers with 20 YOCs have a first PIA factor of 40 percent.
However, the difference between the regular PIA and the WEP PIA cannot exceed one-half of the monthly non-covered pension. This provision is known as the WEP guarantee and results in a smaller WEP reduction to the Social Security benefit than otherwise would have applied.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/program-explainers/windfall-elimination-provision.html
"... a complete overhaul of Social Security ..."
Naw, that would require the current Congress critters to actually take responsibility for tough choices now and Congress in general to take responsibility for kicking the can down the street so many times over the last five decades. Well, the pigeons have come home to roost; the game of musical chairs is coming to an end with the last chair left for dozens of Congress critters (sorry about the mixed metaphors); and it is no longer easy for politicians to pretend that their comeuppance is safely off into the distant future. When the crash comes there will be a lot of angry people and a lot of finger pointing. Who will survive?
At least Congress is consistent - in that - bills do exactly the opposite of the name. This is the opposite of fairness. Motherfuckers really do want the fund to go bankrupt as quickly as possible.
Just a Dem giveaway to their biggest constituency (government workers and public employee unions) before the Repubs take over.
Then why did the Republicans in the House pass it?
You don’t buy the bullshit that the GOP is the “small government party” do you?
Who’s the majority leader, fuckface?
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Of course not. The Repubs overspend almost as badly as the Dems. But there's a reason the District of Criminals voted 97% for Democrats.
Again. 75 nay votes. All the house members you hate lol.
This week blaming of the GOP for something your preferred members support while ignoring the votes is hilarious.
Just a fucking lying retard. You support this. The people you support in Congress are the yes votes.
No Republican would ever support a bill like that! What? All but 75 did? Well, um, uh... no true Republican would never support a bill like that!
As I told shrike, it is the establishment GOP you often publicly say need to return to power. While you attack those who cast the Nay vote.
Like shrike your complaints are fake because you demand the squish GOP that bows to the left. Look at which conservatives you call honest. You attack those who actually advocate and vote for spending cuts. Lol.
Everything about you is a lie. A normal person who wants these cuts would praise those 75 house members who voted no, but in that list is the very people you choose to attack regularly or blame for Congressional chaos.
It is highly amusing.
What was the count of no votes from the Democrats side?
The new 'bipartisan is when' 2 R's out of 200+ vote for a D bill.
But when 2 Democrat senators side with the Republicans, it's the minority obstructing the minority.
Nope. Just that on average, GOP Congress-critters are *slightly* better than Democrats on things that are important to me. There's still plenty of idiots and squishes in the GOP Congress who are perfectly willing to fuck over taxpayers if there's something in it for them, like AFGE "campaign contributions".
Not a giveaway - just treating government workers the same as everyone else.
Kamala Harris is eligible Social Security for not working at McDonald's.
Hey, connecting benefits to obligations like prior contributions is racist!
This bill does not change the connection between prior contributions and the amount of Social Security benefits earned. The article is BS.
Congress passed the WEP to prevent workers who receive non-covered pensions from receiving higher Social Security benefits as if they were long-time, low-wage earners. b In 2022, the WEP applied to 3.1 percent of all beneficiaries (2.01 million beneficiaries out of 65.99 million total beneficiaries).
HOW THE WEP WORKS: Social Security benefits are calculated by applying three different percentages to a person's lifetime average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) and adding them up to obtain the worker's monthly benefit (primary insurance amount (PIA)) at full retirement age. For most beneficiaries in 2024, the PIA equals the sum of:
90 percent of the first $1,174 of AIME, plus
32 percent of AIME over $1,174 and through $7,078, plus
15 percent of AIME over $7,078.
The WEP PIA replicates the regular PIA but scales down the first percentage from 90 percent to 40 percent in increments of five percentage points for workers with less than 30 years of coverage (YOCs). Thus, workers with 30 or more YOCs have a first PIA factor of 90 percent, workers with 21–29 YOCs have a first PIA factor between 45–85 percent, and workers with 20 YOCs have a first PIA factor of 40 percent.
However, the difference between the regular PIA and the WEP PIA cannot exceed one-half of the monthly non-covered pension. This provision is known as the WEP guarantee and results in a smaller WEP reduction to the Social Security benefit than otherwise would have applied.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/program-explainers/windfall-elimination-provision.html
How about they pay into social security, collect benefits when they retire, and we eliminate their private pensions?
I mean, social security is a good system, right? Its works, right? Why wouldn't they want to use it?
If anything it's amazing that government public sector Unions ever got such a sweetheart deal in the first place, but then they've always been super corrupt.
This is just Democrats going back to form and putting their corruption on full display.
It amounts to 'fuck you proles, government workers are more important than you so you should be happy to pay them twice'.
teachers, postal workers and illegals outrank the average private sector tax paying prole.
To be fair, the pensions are probably bankrupt too. DOGE should broadcast the bankrupt pension states and cities, start working on these ads b4 the midterms. The democrats were funneling cash to these shithole states and cities, now they’re doing it through SS.
Public sector workers get great pensions because they make a LOT less than they would get in private sector jobs. Elected officials like this system because they have smaller budgets today and pass the problem on to the next generation.
There are a few states where this can not happen. New York is one of them. Public pensions have to be fully funded. And it is thanks to the powerful unions that any politician who dares to suggest otherwise has his/her political career quickly ended.
Oooooorrrrrrrrrrr...
They make a lot less because they are the rejects of the private sector. As Ray Stantz said, "Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results!"
Public sector workers get great pensions because they make a LOT less than they would get in private sector jobs.
That's not always true and it's less true than it used to be. Teachers are a good example. Private school teachers, unless it's a pretty prestigious school, often make less than a public school counterpart.
Fuck you, cut spending!
If we could just figure out a way to kill off Social Security once and for all.
We can. Stop all the foreign aid we spend and repurpose it. Determine the total amount of money paid into Social Security for each worker by the worker and employer(s) contributions for all non-retirees. Calculate the value of those funds if the average interest over the period those funds were paid into had accrued to the employees account. Transfer it to the 401Ks of the employees it belongs to. No 401K?, then cut a check and send it to the employee.
For those currently collecting social security: Run the same calculation for their contributions. Subtract payments received to date. Cut a check for the balance and send to them so they can invest it or purchase an annuity with it.
Math impaired Idiot. Foreign aid is less than one percent of the federal budget. And to end Social Security as you suggest would require printing massive amounts of money and put millions of elderly Americans into desperate poverty. It would, however, result in big commissions for the finance folks who sell annuities.
Eliminating WEP and GPO will cost about $19B per year. The $200B we have wasted in Ukraine could cover this cost for more than 10 years. Moreover, the tens of $billions spent each year paying for illegals in our own country would more than pay for this additional cost.
Foreign aid is a substantial portion of the Defense budget so way over 1%
Sure, sounds good. The faster the entire thing goes tits up the better as far as I'm concerned.
I get less than 300 month from SS because I was for most of my working life a public school teacher, tho I did pay in in some years with other jobs. Of this, Medicare takes $180, so I get $120 a month.
This article says there will be a shortfall hurting those who qualify for full SS benefits WHEN the surplus of several trillion is exhausted in 10 years. Well, folks, that only gives us 10 years to repeal the cap on SS taxes that benefits the most wealthy. So let's change that to IF the surplus is exhausted, in case Congress does not think 10 years is enough to pass a one sentence law: all income will be taxed for Social Security Period. But the rear of insolvenacy is a political weapon used by Republicans to frighten people and view them as their saviors..how by handing over the trillions in Social Security to Wall St. And Wall St never fails, does it? Wall St will then extract huge fees to shrink the fund and gamble with the money expecting to pocket big profits if their gamling works and to be bailed out, once again, if it fails. And so Reason has once again provided a false narrative that assume tht SS will fail because it fails to note the fact that Congress can, in a day, make SS solvent by ending the payroll tax cap on the wealthy, And this omission is, I would suggest, a form of dishonesty to make the handing over of the SS trillions to Wall St. seem necessary.
You’re so close. 1st: what are public pensions invested in and who does the investing? 2nd: Why are pensions belly up in Democrat run states, cities…see truthinaccounting.org.
Well, folks, that only gives us 10 years to repeal the cap on SS taxes that benefits the most wealthy.
How does any of this benefit the people who will not need or use social security at any point in their lives? They could light their social security payments on fire to light their cigars in retirement.
Oh, right, they don't end up entirely on the hook for your lack of financial planning at any point during your life. That's how they 'benefit'. They are only forced to pay for some of your total lack of financial planning during your entire life. How beneficent of the government to allow them this.
See, when you get specific it boils down to jealousy and entitlement on behalf of people drawing on the program.
Well, folks, that only gives us 10 years to repeal the cap on SS taxes that benefits the most wealthy.
How long will that delay the insolvency? Once the cap is eliminated, the benefits paid to those high income individuals in retirement in the future will also go up (albeit at the level past the second bend point). If the cap is eliminated we could end up in 30 years with some people getting millions of dollars a year in Social Security benefits.
The current structure disproportionately benefits the poor, not the wealthy, as the first dollar a chronic low wage earner contributes six times the retirement benefit that the last dollar each year that a chronic high wage earner contributes. As well, the higher wage earner is almost certain to end up getting taxed on 85% of their Social Security benefits while the low wage earner will likely be taxed on none of their benefits (the high wage earner's 85% tax on benefits goes directly back into Medicare and the Social Security Trust Fund).
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed the people passing this legislation will not be affected by it, financially-speaking - just like every other law they write. Therein lies the problem.
Yes, of course. Phase 6 of Every Project:
6. Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants.
When has the Kleptocracy ever hesitated to plunder the Treasury?
With the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security coming to a close, it's time for the US to make like Norway and establish a sovereign wealth fund. Two percent of all oil and gas profits invested into the market, from which all future pseudo-SS funds will be distributed.
Once established, it will provide a multi-Trillion boost to the economy and we can eliminate FICA from our payroll taxes once and for all.
And any politician found wetting his beak in the fund will be electrocuted on Pay Per View (I've thought of everything).
Eliminate all taxes on anyone over the age of 67. If we're going to drill, baby, drill, doesn't it make sense that all Americans benefit from such behaviors? Alaska already has a version of this. It shouldn't be too difficult to spin up and we'll need a small team of actuarials to figure how and when to cut over.
But, obviously, Social Security is a dead end going nowhere. This is the best alternative I could come up with.
That is socialist.
Social Security Fairness Act
Come on. Who can be against fairness?
^THIS /s ...
It's only ?fair? that the *special* people get to steal ?free? ponies from their neighbors.
MORE 'armed-theft' for the Socialists Security......
Don't kid yourselves. The Socialists are literally robbing you blind.
You work so hard and go nowhere EXACTLY because of Gov-Gun fiat-$ games, Gov-Gun market monopolies, Gov-Gun regulation fees and Gov-Gun obvious tax/theft. Want to know how China products are 10% of the price of US products? ZERO - tax. That's how and that explains how much US Gov-Gun packing socialists are STEALING from your works.
Need more evidence to be a believer? D.C. is the richest area in the USA and produces absolutely NOTHING to speak of. Your empathy propaganda has built a Nazi-Empire of dictators and thieves. What to do when government is nothing but a 'Gun' packing mob of criminal minds?
Consider this. Their livelihood is TAKING by pointing Gov-Guns.
Ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice is the only thing important enough to 'Gun' ensure it's existence. When government isn't ensuring anyone's Liberty or Justice what are they REALLY doing?
Meanwhile, Congress received testimony that Social Security is making monthly payouts to 6.5 million people aged 112 or older. In reality, only a handful of people (all women) are known to be living at that age.
So, instead of acting on this obvious MASSIVE FRAUD, this is the bill they are considering???
Citation?
Not Leftshot, but here you go:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/10/392112708/6-5-million-social-security-numbers-linked-to-those-112-or-older#:~:text=iStockphoto-,A%20watchdog%20review%20of%20the%20Social%20Security%20Administration%20found%20approximately,years%20of%20age%20or%20older.&text=More%20than%204%2C000%20people%20availed,over%20the%20age%20of%20112.
That article does not say that 6.5 million people receive benefits who are over 112 years old. In a remarkably confusing way, they note that there are numbers that when checked would belong to people over 112. The problem comes from a lack of reporting of all deaths, many of them over 50 years old, that never got reported. It also seems that there are people using those numbers and reporting earrings, but those earnings don't result in benefits since the supposed worker is not the number holder. As the article stated, those earnings are posted to a suspense account, actually a benefit to the Social Security Trust Fund when not paid out, just like the earnings of illegal aliens, and many of these earnings might be to illegal aliens. Should Social Security do a better job cleaning up their data base? Yes. But misleading articles and misleading understanding of even what the article says is no help.
WEP is somewhat ridiculous. Work 25 years private only, get SS for that... but work 25 private years and 10 public years and get your SS reduced? That's messed up.
If you work 30 years private, WEP goes away. I forget which one impacts spousal benefits. But nobody should have their SS reduced for a government pension if they actually paid into SS.
I'm in this split category and they actually *did* deduct part of your salary for the state pension when I worked for the government. Maybe fed is different, but WEP is *any* government pension.
If you work 30 years private
That doesn't automatically apply to ALL years—only those in which you earned what the SSA calls "significant income". Very low income workers can work more years than that and still get docked if they end up working in public employment also.
Well yes I left that part out as well. I think it's called "qualifying years" or something.
My problem is I'm only at about 21-23 qualifying years so I'll need to cobble together 7-9 more. Assuming there's even any SS left by the time I retire.
Congress passed the WEP to prevent workers who receive non-covered pensions from receiving higher Social Security benefits as if they were long-time, low-wage earners. b In 2022, the WEP applied to 3.1 percent of all beneficiaries (2.01 million beneficiaries out of 65.99 million total beneficiaries).
HOW THE WEP WORKS: Social Security benefits are calculated by applying three different percentages to a person's lifetime average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) and adding them up to obtain the worker's monthly benefit (primary insurance amount (PIA)) at full retirement age. For most beneficiaries in 2024, the PIA equals the sum of:
90 percent of the first $1,174 of AIME, plus
32 percent of AIME over $1,174 and through $7,078, plus
15 percent of AIME over $7,078.
The WEP PIA replicates the regular PIA but scales down the first percentage from 90 percent to 40 percent in increments of five percentage points for workers with less than 30 years of coverage (YOCs). Thus, workers with 30 or more YOCs have a first PIA factor of 90 percent, workers with 21–29 YOCs have a first PIA factor between 45–85 percent, and workers with 20 YOCs have a first PIA factor of 40 percent.
However, the difference between the regular PIA and the WEP PIA cannot exceed one-half of the monthly non-covered pension. This provision is known as the WEP guarantee and results in a smaller WEP reduction to the Social Security benefit than otherwise would have applied.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/program-explainers/windfall-elimination-provision.html
This wouldn’t be such an issue if the government wasn’t employing so many people…
It would have been helpful if the article had explained just why the WEP and GPO repeal would benefit those workers.
The reason has to do with how benefits are calculated. There is a formula for determining benefits that provides a higher return for low income workers. What is happening in these cases is the benefit for someone who did not work and pay into Social Security because they were State Employees and had a separate pension system, they may have other earnings that qualify them for Social Security but mostly those are low earnings. They want to get benefits based on the formula that benefits low income workers when they were not.
One solution would be to require ALL such employees to pay into Social Security and not be exempted from those payments.
Note, not all State Employees are exempt from FICA. It was a choice they, or really their Unions, made in negotiations for their contracts. Not paying in saves them, and their employers, the State, money.
And, this is hardly a Democrat idea. The big push has always included a substantial number of Republicans in a bipartisan bid to appease these workers.