This is some great news for those of us who work as police, fire, and teachers and have a separate retirement system. I worked on the Wichita Police Department from 1978 to 1998. At the time I retired in 1998 my SSA would have been cut by 60%. And even though I've worked the last 26 years since retiring, my benefits are still cut by 40%. Hopefully the Senate passes this as well and it gets signed into law.


https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2...rules-passes-house-/

I hope it passes the Senate and gets signed into law as well. This would affect federal, state, and local government employees. Given the anti-government sentiment direction that the wind is blowing, it might be tough to get it through the Senate, but I hope so. I think Biden is likely to sign it. I voted for the guy, but I doubt that Trump would sign it. Although I certainly could be wrong about that.

Supposedly it has a lot of support in the Senate, so hopefully they will vote on it, and as long as Biden doesn't veto it, it will become law whether he signs it or not.

Hmmm.....

I guess this would depend. Social Security is not an 'everyone in the country' setup, it's a 'you need to qualify and your FICA-taxed-earnings record determines the amount' setup.

Have those people been paying into the Social Security system via FICA/payroll taxes? If so, making them pay in and then excluding them or reducing their benefits arbitrarily when it was time to start sending benefits would be unfair and I hope they fix that.

OTOH, if they weren't paying into the Social Security system - FICA taxes withheld from their earnings plus employers' associated payroll taxes - then it's hard to see how they could qualify for getting payments from a system they weren't part of.

I don't know which is the case, but if the SSA is getting their payments all along and is somehow denying/docking them because of some other program they participate in, that's bogus.

^^^^^^. That would be the question I have. Do .gov employees pay into Social Security? If not, then they have no right to receive those benefits.

In the case of the OP, it sounds like he worked a 20 year hitch, then worked another 26 years in the private sector. Those 26 years should be eligible for a SS benefit, provided he was paying into it. If that is not the case, then that is wrong.

Based on the other bills referenced (WEP and GPO) it sure looks like these people DIDN'T pay SSI while working those jobs. Right from the WEP info sheet at the SSA:

quote:

Your Social Security retirement or
disability benefits may be reduced
The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) can affect how
Social Security calculates your retirement or disability
benefit. If you work for an employer who doesn’t withhold
Social Security taxes from your salary, any retirement
or disability pension you get from that work can reduce
your Social Security benefits. Such an employer may be
a government agency or an employer in another country.
When your benefits can be affected
The following provisions can affect you if both are true:
• You earn a retirement or disability pension from an
employer who didn’t withhold Social Security taxes.
• You may be eligible for Social Security retirement or
disability benefits from work in other jobs for which
you did pay taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
^^^^^^. That would be the question I have. Do .gov employees pay into Social Security? If not, then they have no right to receive those benefits.

In the case of the OP, it sounds like he worked a 20 year hitch, then worked another 26 years in the private sector. Those 26 years should be eligible for a SS benefit, provided he was paying into it. If that is not the case, then that is wrong.

I don't fully understand the how the SSA figures out what your benefits should be. There is something about people who during their working career (like teachers) may have years where their pay wasn't very high and so when they retire, they may be eligible for an extra percent or two added to the calculation on their total benefit amount. Or something like that.

In my particular case, I had jobs before joining the police department where I did pay into the system. During the time on the department, I didn't pay in but did have part time jobs where I did pay in. And after retiring from the department, I paid in to the system for 20+ years. But since there were a number of years where I didn't pay in, and I have a separate retirement, that gets factored in and my SSA is reduced.

An example would be, if during my whole working career I paid into the system and my benefits would be $1,800.00/month. But based on what I actually paid in my benefits would be $1400.00/month. What the Windfall Prevention Act does is reduce that $1,400.00/month amount down to $840.00/month.

It's the government, so nothing is easy to understand or explain.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sreding:
Based on the other bills referenced (WEP and GPO) it sure looks like these people DIDN'T pay SSI while working those jobs. Right from the WEP info sheet at the SSA:[QUOTE]

Correct, and if the SSA benefits were based on what was paid in there would not be a problem, but it's not. Now if you worked in a job that didn't pay into SSI your whole working career, then I agree you shouldn't be getting social security benefits. Although there may be a minimum amount that everyone is "entitled" to regardless of whether they paid in or not, I'm not sure about that though.

My understanding is you have to work “40 quarters” where you and your employer pays the taxes in order to qualify.

The amount you qualify for is based on what your earning were (highest 5 years maybe?).

I don’t know if that amount goes up based on additional quarters/years or if someone who paid 40 quarters and earned “X” as their highest pay would get the same benefit as someone who paid in for 120 quarters and also earned “X” as their highest pay.

It would make sense to me though as the person paying in for 30 years should get more than the one who only paid in for 10.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
It would make sense to me though as the person paying in for 30 years should get more than the one who only paid in for 10.

Yes, at a minimum, everyone should get back what they put in. This is how it was sold originally.

Here are some actual figures based on my personal work history.

My 2019 social security statement says that based on my work history starting in 1973, my expected benefit amount at age 66 and 2 months was $1,196.00/month which could also be reduced due to the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).

When I retired in February 2021 at age 66 and 2 months, my actual benefit was, due to the WEP act, $802.00/month. A $394.00/month decrease. In my 48 years of working there were only 10 years where no social security taxes were taken out.

I and probably most of those impacted by the WEP are not asking, and do not want any benefits we are not entitled to. But that extra $394.00/month certainty isn't a "windfall" and would come in handy.

Agree with B92F above.

I worked for 13 years in the private sector and due to WEP I have a greatly reduced Social Security amount. I just think it is unfair and hope that the Windfall Profit Elimination Provision is voted out. I would just expect the same as someone who worked the same amount of years that I did that was making the same salary as I was during the time I was working.

Social Security takes your highest 30? years income, which is inflation adjusted. From that they calculate your baseline SSA benefit. If you take it before your full retirement age (67 for those just about to retire now), it gets reduced, and if you wait to take it until you're older, the benefit goes up.

If you only work 10 years at a FICA job (non-government), then they average in zeroes for 20 years. Which greatly reduces your SSA benefit.

However, you did work those 10 years paying into SSA, and so the benefit is definitely earned.

SSA "bends the curve" numerous ways, which penalizes higher earners both before and after retirement. So one can't use a simple formula to calculate what you should get.

If you paid in, you should get SSA. If you earned a pension at any job, government or not, you also deserve to get that.

I don't know how it actually works, but I don't see anything wrong with a reduction for SS payments. If you're entitled to 2,000 SS from your FICA paying jobs, but you also have a $2,000 payment from non FICA paying jobs and they reduced your SS by $1,000. Then you are still getting $1,000 more than the guy that paid FICA their entire career. Besides getting a $1,000 extra ($3,000 vs $2,000) you also had 7.5% more income every year you worked the non FICA paying job, hopefully you chose to put all that tax savings into a retirement account as well. Let's say that retirement account has done well and you get an extra $1,500 per month in income from the 7.5% extra you saved over the years to supplement the $2,000 government pension and $1,000 reduced SS payment. That means you are getting $4,500 per month vs the guy that worked at a FICA paying his whole career and only gets $2,000 a month.

I see nothing wrong with that. I think it's fair to account for the government pension and the extra 7.5% times X number of years. I do not think it's fair if there is a case that someone gets less than the $2,000 per month total between both SS and government pension, but I highly doubt there's anyone in that category. If there is someone in that category, then I feel the total should be increased to equal the $2,000 they would be eligible for based on their income. Working for the government should not allow you to double dip.

I worked 25 years in the prison system and 23 creditable years outside of it. With the 23 years alone, my SS would total 600 bucks a month more than it will due to the WEP. It's a real nice "fuck you" for having performed a life endangering job.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
^^^^^^. That would be the question I have. Do .gov employees pay into Social Security? If not, then they have no right to receive those benefits.

In the case of the OP, it sounds like he worked a 20 year hitch, then worked another 26 years in the private sector. Those 26 years should be eligible for a SS benefit, provided he was paying into it. If that is not the case, then that is wrong.

As a public employee I agree with you.

In our state, we have two different public retirement systems (three actually, because the sheriff's departments have their own thing for merit deputies). The bigger city LE and fire agencies have a system with better benefits and an earlier draw, but they don't pay into social security. Their pension functions in lieu of social security, and they will not get social security benefits upon retirement unless they paid into it at a different job at some point in their career.

The rest of us who are not on that system do have a public employee pension that we pay into, but the benefits are not as good and we are not eligible to draw until much later. We also pay into social security at the same time, however, so while it costs us more up front, we do get that benefit upon retirement.

I'd have no problem with the folks on the better system being eligible for social security, but if they're going to draw from it they also need to be paying in just like everybody else.

There are 2 retirement systems for Federal employees — CSRS and FERS. CSRS is the Civil Service Retirement System, and WEP applies to CSRS employees because they did not pay into Social Security. FERS went into effect on 1 JAN 1987, so there are very few CSRS employees still working.

FERS employees - Federal Employees Retirement System - DO pay into SS and are fully entitled to collect benefits once they achieve 40 credits, and WEP does not apply to FERS employees.

The CSRS pension is quite good, which was why the WEP was implemented. FERS consists of a “3-legged stool” including a small defined-benefit pension (which FERS employees pay into), plus the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) (like a 401k), and Social Security.

That said, in my personal opinion, a CSRS employee who retires from Federal service and subsequently works at a job in which they do pay into Social Security, should be entitled to collect if they otherwise qualify (40 credits).

quote:

Originally posted by B92F:
Here are some actual figures based on my personal work history.

My 2019 social security statement says that based on my work history starting in 1973, my expected benefit amount at age 66 and 2 months was $1,196.00/month which could also be reduced due to the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).

When I retired in February 2021 at age 66 and 2 months, my actual benefit was, due to the WEP act, $802.00/month. A $394.00/month decrease. In my 48 years of working there were only 10 years where no social security taxes were taken out.

I and probably most of those impacted by the WEP are not asking, and do not want any benefits we are not entitled to. But that extra $394.00/month certainty isn't a "windfall" and would come in handy.

Exactly correct. We don't want benefits we didn't earn, we just don't want to be penalized because we also have a pension from a non-contributing government employer.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
Hmmm.....
I guess this would depend. Social Security is not an 'everyone in the country' setup, it's a 'you need to qualify and your FICA-taxed-earnings record determines the amount' setup.
Have those people been paying into the Social Security system via FICA/payroll taxes? If so, making them pay in and then excluding them or reducing their benefits arbitrarily when it was time to start sending benefits would be unfair and I hope they fix that.

OTOH, if they weren't paying into the Social Security system - FICA taxes withheld from their earnings plus employers' associated payroll taxes - then it's hard to see how they could qualify for getting payments from a system they weren't part of.

I don't know which is the case, but if the SSA is getting their payments all along and is somehow denying/docking them because of some other program they participate in, that's bogus

In my case, I worked various jobs prior to working for a municipal fire dept. While working for said FD, I also worked side jobs because the pay was shit in the early 80’s.
Having only worked 17 quarters of the required 40, I won’t see ANY Social Security or Medicare benefits until my wife retires, who worked her whole life in the private sector.
(I may not be alive by then, she’s 14 years younger than me.)
And I’m fine with that…I didn’t pay in, my retirement is enough and I don’t need SS or Medicare.

However, there are MANY public service folks who paid SS AND paid into their city/state retirement programs.
Those people get the shaft by SS reducing their benefits arbitrarily because they also paid into and receive a separate retirement income.
It isn’t right and should be changed. They were double paying into 2 different retirement “accounts” and have every right to receive full benefits from both plans they paid into.

quote:

Originally posted by SigFan:
There are 2 retirement systems for Federal employees — CSRS and FERS...

I hate to confuse non-Federal people, but there is also CSRS-offset which my wife is in. She started around 1966 in CSRS, but took a break 1989-93 to accompany me to an assignment in Japan. I have always been in FERS (I started temp in 1983 and made permanent in early 1984).

She returned to civil service around 2000 and was put into CSRS Offset and worked under that for about 10 years. She gets a small SS check with a reduction because of her CSRS years.

A WEP repeal would add a little to her SS check, it would also allow her to claim SS benefits off me which she cannot do now. I’m unclear on the spousal benefits, I might have to die first.