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

[GrayFal]

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.

Interesting you say this.
When my friend @jackio brought this to my attention a few days ago, I did not know about this penalty. My husband also worked for the Feds x 7/8 years but like you, he withdrew his pension money (assuming that is what CSRS is?) when he left and reinvested it.
He has been on SS x 6 years now and it never came up when he applied but he was surprised to hear this penalty could have affected his SS amount.

 

[rapmarks]

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.

I found out about this news on tug. I have avoided the news for the past several weeks. I can’t bear the animosity in politics. ten or more years ago, I thought it might resolve but I now realize it will never change in my lifetime.
I will never miss my $52 a month, adjusted for cost of living, but ss is vital for most of the retired population. But will they ever work together to solve problems!!!

 

[TolmiePeak]

I doubt if congress ever will work together to solve social security's problems. They will just wait a few years until the automatic cuts kick in and then point fingers.

 

[Roger830]

SS was designed as a pay-as-you-go system so there is no reason to change anything for the next 12 years. That's why the trust fund was added.

Originally a worker only needed 3 years of contributions (now 10) to collect the minimum benefit.
I had an uncle that married my oldest aunt from a family of eleven.
After retiring as a postman he had a part time job for three years, then collected SS for over 30 years on top of his pension. I heard him talk about it while laughing numerous times.

 

[Tia]

Interesting you say this.
When my friend @jackio brought this to my attention a few days ago, I did not know about this penalty. My husband also worked for the Feds x 7/8 years but like you, he withdrew his pension money (assuming that is what CSRS is?) when he left and reinvested it.
He has been on SS x 6 years now and it never came up when he applied but he was surprised to hear this penalty could have affected his SS amount.

Civil Service Retirement System is CSRS . Yes when I applied the SS gal kept saying I had a Pension, I told her I didn't. She gave me a number to call to get documentation, but it was for Active Military who gave me the OPM # to call. I had to get a letter from https://www.opm.gov/ they told me it required going into the archives for records this old. The first letter OPM sent didn't have the exact wording this SS gal wanted. On another call one employee told me she thought my SS gal was getting CSRS confused with other retirement plans. This all happened when Covid was going, so no one was in the office to ask their supervisor or someone that knew more of the regulations. This was the short version to the trials with SS I had.

A friend retired out of our Federal Government in another branch in DC told me you should see the policy manuals stacks he had to learn , it took years and help from those who had been there. He said my SS gal was probably new only maybe 3 years in so just did not know.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I can tell you that the IAFF requested that all firefighters inundate letters to their representatives. Rick did it, and a huge percentage of retired and active firefighters for Denver wrote letters. It was easy to do. The word spread like wildfire.

 

[ScoopKona]

i cannot believe that any elected official would let social security fail,

"Believe" has nothing to do with it. Ever read the trustee's report? Even the synopsis?

The system as it's set up has automatic provisions for when the trust fund depletes. No elected official need lift a finger. In the last 50 years, two administrations have done everything they can to wreck Social Security and the rest haven't lifted a finger to save it.

Means testing? Remove the income cap? Those would have bought us some time if they were implemented 30 years ago. Today, Social Security is like a morbidly-obese, two-pack-a-day smoker learning he has Stage Four lung cancer. "I'll diet and quit smoking! That'll clear it right up."

That's where we are in regards to the OASDI.

 

[slomac]

This was a pleasant surprise for my husband and I. We both were subject to the WEP as we both worked govt jobs and paid into social security. I will just be happy if it increases enough to cover our Medicare supplements.

 

[rapmarks]

This was a pleasant surprise for my husband and I. We both were subject to the WEP as we both worked govt jobs and paid into social security. I will just be happy if it increases enough to cover our Medicare supplements.

Me too

 

[Patri]

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.

This affects my sister. It was always confusing when she tried to explain the unfairness, but I didn’t have too much sympathy. Most of her career was working for the county, and her husband was a firefighter. They have hefty pensions. Now her SS will double. Regardless, they are well off and traveling like crazy. This will be fun money.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Steady job, with no worries about being laid off, off-shored, or having the company taken over. And with the ability to double dip if you able to.

Nice work if you can get it. . .

 

[TolmiePeak]

Steady job, with no worries about being laid off, off-shored, or having the company taken over. And with the ability to double dip if you able to.

Nice work if you can get it. . .

Just apply. We couldn't find enough engineers to apply at Seattle even though I was offering $75 + excellent benefits. We weren't competitive with what private sector employers were paying.

 

[DeniseM]

Steady job, with no worries about being laid off, off-shored, or having the company taken over. And with the ability to double dip if you able to.

It's not double dipping - it's the same as this scenario:

1. You worked for company A for 20 years, paid into social security, and then retired.
2. You worked for company B for 15 years and paid into a pension, and then retired.

But when you turn 65, you can't get your full social security from job A, because you have a pension from job B.

Teachers and other school district employees get laid off all the time. I was probably laid off 4 times in in my career. 75 people just got laid off in our local school district due to budget cuts.

We also had our department taken over by a different program, outside of our school, and it was awful.

 

[rapmarks]

It's not double dipping - it's the same as this scenario:

1. You worked for company A for 20 years, paid into social security, and then retired.
2. You worked for company B for 15 years and paid into a pension, and then retired.

But when you turn 65, you can't get your full social security from job A, because you have a pension from job B.

Teachers and other school district employees get laid off all the time. I was probably laid off 4 times in in my career.

People forget you paid into that pension. A friend of mine posted figures showing that for the first 26 years , you were getting your own money back, after that you were free loading. Figure out how many get their pension that long.

 

[LeslieDet]

This affects my sister. It was always confusing when she tried to explain the unfairness, but I didn’t have too much sympathy. Most of her career was working for the county, and her husband was a firefighter. They have hefty pensions. Now her SS will double. Regardless, they are well off and traveling like crazy. This will be fun money.

If neither of them ever paid into SS, then they don't get it. If your sister paid into SS and also had a county job where she earns a pension, at most, her SS was reduced by the WEP. The max deduction from the WEP in 2024 was $587/month. In 2025, the max WEP reduction is $612. If your sister's SS is doubling, then she isn't getting much SS in the first place if elimination of the $587/mo max deduction results in her SS doubling.

If your sister is receiving spousal benefits from SS and not under her own earnings record, then with the GPO, her spousal SS benefits are reduced by 2/3 of her pension, but her benefits as a spouse remain at most 50% of her spouse's SS benefit, and then under the GPO, that 50% is reduced by 2/3 of her non-SS earned pension. The removal of the GPO means she would get the full 50% of her spousal benefits, but that would also mean her spouse actually paid into SS during his career. If he never paid into SS, then there is no spousal benefit to pay to his wife.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

It's not double dipping - it's the same as this scenario:

1. You worked for company A for 20 years, paid into social security, and then retired.
2. You worked for company B for 15 years and paid into a pension, and then retired.

But when you turn 65, you can't get your full social security from job A, because you have a pension from job B.

Teachers and other school district employees get laid off all the time. I was probably laid off 4 times in in my career. 75 people just got laid off in our local school district due to budget cuts.

We also had our department taken over by a different program, outside of our school, and it was awful.

Or you worked for company A for 7 years, pension frozen, had you job sold to EDS 2 years later. (1980s) (No 401K)

Worked for company B, had it sold to AIG, pension frozen. (1990's) (No 401K)

Worked for famous bank (name withheld), got ($100/mo pension), off shored. (2000s) (Had 401K)

Worked contract thereafter, Put as much as possible into 401K, (no match) when working, (not always working).

And I'm one of the lucky ones, look at how many private companies with pensions nowadays. . .

 

[DeniseM]

So, you were treated unfairly, so you want others folks to be treated unfairly, too?

 

[jackio]

Deleted. Did not intend to post

 

[LeslieDet]

Or you worked for company A for 7 years, pension frozen, had you job sold to EDS 2 years later. (1980s) (No 401K)

Worked for company B, had it sold to AIG, pension frozen. (1990's) (No 401K)

Worked for famous bank (name withheld), got ($100/mo pension), off shored. (2000s) (Had 401K)

Worked contract thereafter, Put as much as possible into 401K, (no match) when working, (not always working).

And I'm one of the lucky ones, look at how many private companies with pensions nowadays. . .

Didn't your various jobs all pay into SS? Private companies can have pensions, that doesn't impact SS earnings or distributions. This is only for those folks who had jobs where they did not pay into SS with that job (typically a public sector position - teachers, public safety, municipal and state governments, state universities), but they ALSO had jobs where they did pay into SS.

Since the GPO was added in the 1970s and the WEP in the 1980s, folks who had non-SS earnings have been impacted. Either as a direct earner or as a spouse of an earner. The GPO reduction applies only to spousal and survivor benefits paid out by SS. The WEP applies only to the worker who did both private sector job paying into SS and also a public sector job where they did not pay into SS. It doesn't impact anyone who has a private pension from a career where they also paid SS.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

Yes I had SS. But the total <pensions> earned over 40 years only added up to $734 total. My sister bet around $4000/ month from her teacher retirement. (More that SS and my pensions combined - and summers off and no 24/7 on-call, either). And now soon to get her late husbands's SS as well.

Just reminded people that there are two sides to every story.

 

[DeniseM]

 

[LeslieDet]

Yes I had SS. But the total <pensions> earned over 40 years only added up to $734 total. My sister bet around $4000/ month from her teacher retirement. (More that SS and my pensions combined - and summers off and no 24/7 on-call, either). And now soon to get her late husbands's SS as well.

Just reminded people that there are two sides to every story.

I'm not sure how your sister fits into your frustration. It sounds like you were never impacted by the WEP or the GPO. If your sister never worked outside the school system, then unless her spouse did and paid into SS, your sister doesn't receive SS. Her teacher pension is a factor of the contracts her union negotiated for her as a teacher. There is typically a formula that is a factor of years of service and pay; plus some teachers also are able to contribute to a retirement plan similar to a 401k. But again, if she never paid into SS, she doesn't get any SS based upon her pay as a teacher. If she was married to someone who paid into SS, then your sister would benefit because the GPO is being removed.

But any and all spouses who meet the requirements are entitled to seek spousal or survivor benefits based upon their spouse's earnings record. This simply removes the offset imposed on that 50% max spousal benefit. So, yes, some spouses will be better off and receiving more SS than before even though they themselves never contributed to SS as an individual wage earner.

 

[rapmarks]

Yes I had SS. But the total <pensions> earned over 40 years only added up to $734 total. My sister bet around $4000/ month from her teacher retirement. (More that SS and my pensions combined - and summers off and no 24/7 on-call, either). And now soon to get her late husbands's SS as well.

Just reminded people that there are two sides to every story.

Waaaa. My father worked for sherwin Williams forty years. He got a pension of $100 a month and my mother received $50 a month when he died. My aunt worked there for 45 years and received 200 a month.
I can tell you why our state didn’t have us contribute to our pension AND social security. The reason is they would have to match the social security. The state was supposed to match our pension, but did not and to top it off borrowed our money.
its too bad you didn’t go into teaching, you could have a big pension too, of course, the pay probably turned you off to the idea.

 

[Superchief]

There are winners and losers in both the public and private sectors. When I started working in 70's, the private sector was much more attractive, paid better, provided great benefits, and jobs were secure. This changed in the 80's when mergers increased, CEO's became more greedy, pensions were eliminated, and a person had to job hop to stay ahead of layoffs and mergers. It became almost impossible to become vested and retirements were 'forced' at 55. My friends who worded in the public sector were able to stay in their jobs and not relocate, and have higher pensions than my combined SS and private pensions. I think it is fair for everyone who paid into social security to get their fair share. A friend was forced to retire at 55 from P&G, but then got a teaching job at a state university and earned a significant public pension after 7 years. If only I could find a time machine and I would have done something similar.

 

[Carolinian]

There is a lot of injustice in SS. IRMA is a big one where you get penalized on what you paid in due to a younger spouse's wages. Another is the taxation of part of SS benefits. Since we were already taxed on the money that was paid in, this is double taxation.

I guess one issue on all the injustices is when you correct them, SS pays out more and goes bankrupt faster.

[Deleted - unsubstantiated & inflammatory]