I only have 13 credits in so I'm not getting anything. But I guess I will have time. I have to retire from the police pension at age 56, so I have a lot of years to medicare age, so I guess whatever job I work will contribute credits? Definitely getting out of law enforcement.

I thought I explained it in simple terms but others after me have explained it better. The point is that if I made a certain amount of money in the private sector and someone else makes the same amount of money as I with the same amount of years, I shouldn't get 40% less in social security benefits just because I worked at a government job for over 30 years. And no, I was not a teacher except that after I retired I did teach chess to elementary school children after school for several years. I was considered a private contractor and paid SS and medicare taxes. At any rate, I think a wrong has been righted and I am glad of it.

Chowser: Keep in mind that you'll need those 40 credits to qualify for fully paid Medicare Part A at age 65. Otherwise the cost can be over $500 / month. You can also qualify based on the contributions of a spouse or ex=spouse, if you were married for at least 10 years. I don't think SS payroll contributions for our new cops started until about 1986 or so. As a result, I was in the same situation as you, with only about a dozen credits from a couple pre-police jobs when I retired at age 56, after completing the maximum 8 years in DROP. Fortunately, I was able to qualify based on the contributions of my ex-wife. Otherwise, I would've needed to get a civilian job in order to earn the required minimum credits.

quote:

Originally posted by Chowser:
I only have 13 credits in so I'm not getting anything. But I guess I will have time. I have to retire from the police pension at age 56, so I have a lot of years to medicare age, so I guess whatever job I work will contribute credits? Definitely getting out of law enforcement.

There are also plenty of LE and LE-adjacent jobs out there that contribute to SS, if you find you still have the bug at age 56. With 13 credits already, you're only looking at a bit over 6 years of additional work to qualify, and 9 years to do it before 65.

But also remember that part time works qualifies as well, as long as you're paying FICA on it. 1 credit per $1,730 earned, up to 4 credits per year. Even self-employed work counts, if you start a small side hustle. It's not that hard to earn $7k a year on the side or part time... Only a bit over $500/month. So you could get that knocked out now on the side while still working your non-contributing main job. Having mostly part time/side work will mean a smaller SS check (since your average earnings will be low), but it'll still get you full Medicare eligibility.

This post is for SS beneficiaries who are ALREADY collecting SSA benefits and have been affected by WEP or GPO.

As far as WEP, there is no need for anybody to do anything. It's just a matter of some reprogramming. No need to call the 800 number to request a recalculation. No need to file an application for it. I saw something in a employee members only SSA site. A programmer at headquarters said you are probably looking at February or March to see an adjustment. The first adjustment check will be retroactive to the effective date of the legislation. Then you will get your new amount monthly. Checks are often sent out before the notices. So the first check will not be your new amount. That will include the retro. The next check will be the new amount. A letter will be sent explaining it all, but as I said, often the check comes before the letter.

AS far as spouses benefits, if you havent filed because you wouldnt get anything due to GPO, you DO need to file an application. Either file on line or call the 800 number to make an appointment.

When signed, the effective date is January 1, 2024. So,there may be some retro activity to this.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: B92F,

quote:

Originally posted by B92F:
When signed, the effective date is January 1, 2023. So,there may be some retro activity to this.

Actually, it's Dec. 2023.

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:

quote:

Originally posted by B92F:
When signed, the effective date is January 1, 2023. So,there may be some retro activity to this.

Actually, it's Dec. 2023.

I believe the wording is for the months after December 2023, so you are correct.

Another view...

Repealing WEP/GPO Would Raise Deficits, Weaken Social Security

The House of Representatives will soon vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, legislation which would repeal Social Security’s Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO). The unpaid-for bill would add $196 billion to deficits over the next decade and hasten Social Security’s insolvency by roughly six months while adding to the size of the benefit cuts that will automatically take place under current law.

The following is a statement from Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:

How is speeding up the date of Social Security’s retirement fund’s insolvency, increasing the size of the automatic benefit cuts that will hit seniors, and adding $200 billion to the deficit a good plan for seniors or for the country? Yet that is exactly what the Social Security Fairness Act would do.

Social Security is just nine years away from insolvency, and our seniors need a fix fast. Congress should not vote to make the problem worse.

The WEP and GPO were created to prevent Social Security from overpaying certain beneficiaries who also collect state and local pensions, which they paid into instead of paying Social Security taxes during their employment for state and local governments. These provisions aren’t perfect, and there are lots of ideas to reform them. But repealing them altogether would move in exactly the wrong direction.

They should call this bill the Social Security UnFairness Act; it creates a Windfall Expansion Provision for a small number of beneficiaries who would get to double-dip their retirement benefits.

At a time when we’re already borrowing $2 trillion a year and retirees are already slated to see a 21 percent benefit cut – an average of $16,500 for a newly retiring couple in 2033 – in just nine years, why would we make it a 22 percent, $17,300 cut in eight and a half years instead?

There is broad consensus among experts and lawmakers that reform, not repeal, of WEP and GPO would ensure fairness and could actually improve the program’s solvency.

Every day we get closer and closer to Social Security insolvency, and we are no closer to solutions than we were years ago when we first knew we had a problem. For those who say they want to protect Social Security this bill goes in the absolute wrong direction.

https://www.crfb.org/press-rel...aken-social-security

Sure, now all of a sudden people are worried about Social Security insolvency.

^^^ Well, some of us, who look at the numbers, have been worried about Social Security insolvency for a long time.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ Well, some of us, who look at the numbers, have been worried about Social Security insolvency for a long time.

I agree but this fix is not the cause of the potential insolvency. It is a long overdue correction of an unfairness that should never have been placed on those that were affected. It is projected that this newest legislation will accelerate the potential insolvency by six months, from nine years to eight and a half years. Maybe it's time to start working on the problem and stop the wringing of hands about the passage of this bill. Oh my God....you have ruined Social Security with the passage of this bill.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^^ Well, some of us, who look at the numbers, have been worried about Social Security insolvency for a long time.

Nah. It's in a 'lock-box' you see!

Andrew Biggs Rips Congress for Social Security ‘Fairness’ Act

The Social Security Fairness Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden on Jan. 6 thanks to strong bipartisan support. The intent was to provide greater retirement security and “fairness” to people who have dedicated their careers to public service, with bill supporters saying the old law unfairly stripped many low-income government and public workers of the benefits they deserve.

But did they get it wrong? Andrew G. Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a nationally recognized expert on retirement issues and Social Security policy, makes a compelling argument for why the Social Security Fairness Act essentially amounts to a $200 billion giveaway to people who neither need the benefits nor paid into the system to receive them.

Key Insights

Impact of Social Security Fairness Act: The repeal of WEP and GPO provisions increases Social Security benefits for public sector employees but raises concerns about fairness and financial sustainability​.
Public Sector Pension Dynamics: Many public employees benefit from generous pensions and may now receive additional Social Security benefits, leading to “double-dipping” concerns​.
Fiscal Consequences: The $200 billion cost of the legislation accelerates the depletion of Social Security trust funds, threatening long-term sustainability​.

https://401kspecialistmag.com/...ail&utm_medium=email

The issue is more complicated than presented here. I speak as someone who paid into Social Security starting as a teenager in the early 1960s and then as an Air Force reservist until retiring in 1997. In the interim I worked for the federal government for twenty plus years under the old Civil Service retirement system. Due to the time in the Civil Service, I was penalized even though I had many more than 40 quarters contributing to Social Security. I am sure there are many more who contributed under similar circumstances. The irony is that the politicians in Washington decided to change the "rules" due to their concerns in the 1980s about the "solvency" of Social Security (sound familiar?). Over the years I have seen so many areas where Washington politicians changed the "rules" to address the political climate at the time; this is especially true of what military members were promised decades ago which changed over the years (look at how the Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Act was modified): one that comes to mind is medical care. Originally, retired military were told they would have healthcare through the military but in later years that changed: in order to receive your "retired" military ID at 65, you had to sign up for Medicare or no ID card. I have learned over the years: never, ever trust the bureaucrats and politicians in WDC!

I am one of those people subject to WEP. For those suddenly concerned about SS solvency; Not to worry. I, and all those others subject to the WEP for more than a year or so, will never recoup all the money WEP withheld from us.
In essence, I and all those others subject to WEP, have been helping to prop up the SS system all these years.

You're welcome.

quote:

Originally posted by rock185:
I am one of those people subject to WEP. For those suddenly concerned about SS solvency; Not to worry. I, and all those others subject to the WEP for more than a year or so, will never recoup all the money WEP withheld from us.
In essence, I and all those others subject to WEP, have been helping to prop up the SS system all these years.

You're welcome.

That's what I have been saying! I think a lot of people are confused and think we are getting something we 'never' paid into. WEP people will now be getting paid for the time we "actually" worked at a social security deduction job. For many of us it was the jobs we had before we landed a civil service type job.

quote:

Originally posted by urbanwarrior238:
I think a lot of people are confused and think we are getting something we 'never' paid into.

You are correct, I think. I'm a FERS retiree, so this doesn't impact me, but at my post-retirement job I work with a number of CSRS retirees. Some had twenty-ish quarters contributing to Social Security before their government career, and have easily as many in their post-retirement jobs. Up until now, many would've been happy to just have their contributions refunded instead of perpetually deducting for a benefit they'd never be allowed to claim.

Not a single one of them is looking for something they didn't "earn." Rather than stressing about how this will somehow make SS less solvent, perhaps politicians should ask why the solvency of SS should rely on effectively stealing from a relatively small number of contributors.

(I realize it's coming from a different pool of money, but where's the outrage over beneficiaries receiving SSI having never worked a single quarter, ever?)

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 am a federal employee, and I have paid into FICA since I hired on in 1997.

FERS employees pay FICA; CSRS employees did not. There aren't many if any CSRS employees left in the workforce.

I am still not understanding all of this of what it was and will be.

Both my wife and I worked in the private sector and in government jobs. We did it opposite though. She first worked in state government and then went into the private sector. I started in the private sector and now work in state government. For every single job both of us had, even in government, we have paid into SS. We both show we have all the credits. My wife just started receiving her state pension while currently working in the private sector. In 5 months, I will be guaranteed a state pension. I still have 10.5 years until I can fully retire.

Does this mean that even though we have paid into SS every single paycheck of our lives, we would have a reduced SS check when we applied for SS benefits just because we also will have a state pension but this law fixes that? I would think we should get full SS since we both have fully contributed. I just can’t seem to find a firm answer on this.