Congress on early Saturday passed a bill that would increase Social Security benefits for public sector workers.

[Miss Marty]

WASHINGTON
Dec. 21, 2024 - Congress approves changes to Social Security for some public sector workers (by Riley Beggin, Medora Lee) USA TODAY

The Social Security Fairness Act, would eliminate the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), which reduce Social Security benefits for certain retirees who also receive pension income.

Together, WEP and GPO affect nearly 3 million Americans including police officers, firefighters, postal workers and public-school teachers.
The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 70-26 at 12:15 a.m. It was passed by the House in November and now goes to the president's desk to be signed.

Congress approves changes to Social Security for some public sector workers

The legislation will now go to President Joe Biden's desk and is expected to be signed into law.

www.usatoday.com

 

[geist1223]

It is my understanding that the people affected by this change never paid into the Social Security System. So now they are going to receive Social Security Benefits they did not pay for from their Social Security exempt jobs. How is that fair to the rest of us?

 

[rickandcindy23]

It is my understanding that the people affected by this change never paid into the Social Security System. So now they are going to receive Social Security Benefits they did not pay for from their Social Security exempt jobs. How is that fair to the rest of us?

This is not true. They will receive benefits on income they earned before getting government jobs and also their second income while they were working government jobs.

 

[Tia]

It is my understanding that the people affected by this change never paid into the Social Security System. So now they are going to receive Social Security Benefits they did not pay for from their Social Security exempt jobs. How is that fair to the rest of us?

The assumption/understanding is incorrect.

I know a lady that was a nurse who paid into SS, then went to teaching for 17 years and did not pay into SS. Then she went back to nursing for 5 years before retiring paying into SS. She was penalized by WEP.

I worked for 8 years for a Federal branch and did not pay into SS, but pulled the CSRS funds when I quit still in my 30's. A local SS rep tried to apply the WEP penalty when I applied for SS, she didn't know the complicated rules as what she did was wrong. What a mess.

 

[TolmiePeak]

It is my understanding that the people affected by this change never paid into the Social Security System. So now they are going to receive Social Security Benefits they did not pay for from their Social Security exempt jobs. How is that fair to the rest of us?

My wife worked 27 years at a local city that didn't pay into social security. She still has 40 quarterly payments into social security from other jobs that she had. This allows her to collect social security.

 

[jackio]

My husband worked 37 years for the post office. He then worked 13 years for a local hospital. Because he was under the WEP, he is only allowed to collect half of his SS benefit, even though he paid in the full percentage. The benefit is only for the years he paid in. Also, he is ineligible for any survivor benefits should I pass first. The repeal of this bill restores fairness to those who were unjustly penalized.

 

[Superchief]

My husband worked 37 years for the post office. He then worked 13 years for a local hospital. Because he was under the WEP, he is only allowed to collect half of his SS benefit, even though he paid in the full percentage. The benefit is only be for the years he paid in. Also, he is ineligible for any survivor benefits should I pass first. The repeal of this bill restores fairness to those who were unjustly penalized.

This would seem to make sense and be fair for those who worked and paid into social security if the benefit is based on the amount and time the recipient paid social security taxes. Social security taxing policies don't make sense at times. I waited until 67 to collect, but would still have to pay taxes if I decide to work again. Since I would be self-employed, I would be losing 12.4% of income right off the top, with no real benefit.

 

[rickandcindy23]

We had very little hope that this bill would pass. Rick and I have a chimney cleaning business, still have the business, and he paid SS under our business. We have often regretted not claiming the income as mine because he paid a lot of SS.

We will see how this works out for us, but some of the "newer hire" pension, which slashed benefits over the "old hire" on the Denver fire department, will benefit greatly from this bill. Rick was old hire. He started in 1975, retired in 2015.

 

[b2bailey]

A few years ago I met a woman who had been a school teacher her entire life.
When her husband died, she was not able to collect her husbands social security benefits.
I thought this was outrageous.

 

[missyrcrews]

YAY! I have held a retail job almost all my working years, paying into SS. I have also paid into Maine State Retirement during the years that I've been in the public school system. I might be able to retire before I am 90. Might.

 

[DeniseM]

This may vary, but this gives you a general idea how much public servants lose in social security benefits, that they paid into:

How much will my Social Security be reduced if I have a public pension?

How much will my Social Security benefits be reduced? We'll reduce your Social Security benefits by two- thirds of your government pension. For example, if you get a monthly civil service pension of $3,000, two-thirds of that, or $2,000, must be deducted from your Social Security benefits. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10007.pdf

***The example above is from the social security website - I didn't make it up.

 

[DeniseM]

And in case you are wondering, civil servants pay into their pension too - similarly to the way Social Security is set up - it’s not a free ride. For example: CA teachers pay a mandatory 10.2%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[davidvel]

My wife worked 27 years at a local city that didn't pay into social security. She still has 40 quarterly payments into social security from other jobs that she had. This allows her to collect social security.

If you only work for 10 years you get full benefits? Or is it prorated?

 

[TolmiePeak]

If you only work for 10 years you get full benefits? Or is it prorated?

I understand your benefits are based on the amount you contributed over the years. Not sure of the details. Mike Piper has an excellent tool to evaluate strategies on how to maximize your benefits. https://opensocialsecurity.com/

 

[LeslieDet]

This may vary, but this gives you a general idea how much public servants lose in social security benefits, that they paid into:

The WEP is applied to the public servant earner's SS benefits; the GPO is applied to spousal benefits.

The WEP has an annual cap based upon a complicated formula the calculates an earner's AIME. Depending upon how many years of SS substantial earnings, then the WEP is scaled. As an example, for 2024 the maximum WEP deduction to a worker's own SS was $587. For 2025, that max WEP offset increased to $612. That is the only loss to the public servant earner who worked both types of jobs - one with an income that did not pay SS tax and one that paid SS tax. The max loss of benefits per year is the WEP, and it is scaled if you had from 21 - 29 years of SS taxed income, and the WEP is completely eliminated (ie meaning zero reduction in SS benefit) if the public servant had 30 years of substantial earnings in a job that paid SS.

For the GPO, that applies ONLY to spousal benefits under SS when the public servant spouse has the pension from work that did not pay into SS. It is not the public servant spouse losing benefits that they paid into; rather, it is the public servant spouse, who still receives his or her pension from earnings that did not pay into SS, but also receives a spousal SS benefit (based entirely upon their non-public servant spouse's earnings) reduced by a % (which is indeed 2/3 in 2024) of the public servant spouse's pension. What is being reduced is not anything that the public service spouse personally paid into SS. It is purely a benefit based upon the non-public service spouse's earnings record. Thus, the term "offset".

 

[rapmarks]

If you only work for 10 years you get full benefits? Or is it prorated?

I worked after retirement to reach 40 credits. I should have received $220 a month, but with pension offset I received $52 a month. Wow would it be great to receive the full amount.

 

[jackio]

I worked after retirement to reach 40 credits. I should have received $220 a month, but with pension offset I received $52 a month. Wow would it be great to receive the full amount.

My husband's benefit should be $804/month. He now receives $402/month less the $174 Medicare premium. Elimination of the WEP will bring him back up to the $804. He had 13 years of social security service post retirement, plus a couple of teenage jobs prior to him going into the postal service.

 

[rapmarks]

My husband's benefit should be $804/month. He now receives $402/month less the $174 Medicare premium. Elimination of the WEP will bring him back up to the $804. He had 13 years of social security service post retirement, plus a couple of teenage jobs prior to him going into the postal service.

I don’t get enough to pay the Medicare premium, there is a strange rule in my scenario. They will not let me pay monthly and send me a yearly bill. But I pay for part d monthly, sometimes they don’t take it out and send me a bill. My husband got nothing and he could pay monthly. He would not have received my ss if I preceded him to the pearly gates. What’s worse is they don’t send me the total earned for income tax because it is so low. Every year I have to look it up because I do owe taxes on it

 

[rickandcindy23]

We know how "broke" SS is. We hear about it all of the time, so passing this is going to create even more discussion about how the system will be broke in ___? years.

 

[DeniseM]

Outside of teaching, I have 14 years vested in Social Security. I'm interested to see how this bill will change things.

I have worked my whole life, since the age of 10, when I worked for 50¢ an hour on the farm during the harvest. At age 16, I started working away from the farm, and I've never stopped - I still work now. In college, I worked full-time most of the time, because I was putting myself through college.

 

[rapmarks]

Outside of teaching, I have 14 years vested in Social Security. I'm interested to see how this bill will change things.

I have worked my whole life, since the age of 10, when I worked for 50¢ an hour on the farm during the harvest. At age 16, I started working away from the farm, and I've never stopped - I still work now. In college, I worked full-time most of the time, because I was putting myself through college.

I think I got 87 cents an hour working on the switchboard in the dorm in college. My summer jobs were for railway express agency and that went into railroad retirement system. Lots of jobs that never earned me ss credits and my husband too.

 

[ScoopKona]

We know how "broke" SS is. We hear about it all of the time, so passing this is going to create even more discussion about how the system will be broke in ___? years.

Fill in the blank with "Ten-ish."

We don't hear how "broke" SS is, incidentally. We hear that the OASDI trust fund is hemorrhaging money because beneficiaries are drawing far more than workers are replenishing. When (not if) the fund depletes, that means across the board cuts of somewhere in the neighborhood of one-third.

I read the trustee's report every year. Even though Social Security benefits aren't a concern for me, societal instability is. I'll start drawing the minute I'm allowed to. (Probably somewhere in my 80s, based on how dire things are.) If it amounts to any more than beer money, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Brett]

Fill in the blank with "Ten-ish."

We don't hear how "broke" SS is, incidentally. We hear that the OASDI trust fund is hemorrhaging money because beneficiaries are drawing far more than workers are replenishing. When (not if) the fund depletes, that means across the board cuts of somewhere in the neighborhood of one-third.

I read the trustee's report every year. Even though Social Security benefits aren't a concern for me, societal instability is. I'll start drawing the minute I'm allowed to. (Probably somewhere in my 80s, based on how dire things are.) If it amounts to any more than beer money, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

It's probably going to be more than "beer money" because seniors will still be a significant voting share
but Gen X, Z, millennials, etc. should definitely increase their investments for long term retirement planning - it's hard to predict the future

.

 

[WorldT]

It is my understanding that the people affected by this change never paid into the Social Security System. So now they are going to receive Social Security Benefits they did not pay for from their Social Security exempt jobs. How is that fair to the rest of us?

You don't get any benefits if you never paid into social security. You also do not get any benefits if you did not work enough qualifying quarters.
What was happening is that people who worked in the public sector and then in the private sector (or in reverse) got their social security payments that they were entitled to (based on the years they paid SS taxes) reduced because of the pension they received for working in the public sector.

 

[jackio]

salaries have increased dramatically in the last 50 years. Increasing the social security wage base would make a huge difference, but the lawmakers are reluctant to do it.

i cannot believe that any elected official would let social security fail, if they ever wanted to remain in politics. No one wants to be the one who cuts off the nation’s seniors. Major overhaul is needed to save the program, but no one is looking forward to tackling it.