Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Repealing the Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision And Pension Offset 2017 Legislation

Update to those who are involved in these Social Security situations-

 

Here is the newest  legislation to be introduced to repeal the Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision and the Pension Offset.

 

H.R. 1205 - Social Security Fairness Act of 2017

 

introduced 02/2017 by Rep. Rodney Davis (R - IL)

currently 158 co-sponsors 

has gone through the Ways and Means Committee

now in the sub-committee for Social Security

 

identical bill in the Senate S.915

introducedm04/2017 by Senator Sherrod Brown (D - OH)

currently 9 co-sponsors

In the Finance Commttee

S. 915 Social Security Fairness Act of 2017

 

Here is what the Committee for the Preservation of Social Security and Medicare says about this proposed legislation.

NCPSSM Public Policy - Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision

 

Only position I could find from AARP, although the article does not bear a year , John Rother left this position in 2011 - current AARP position ???????

 

AARP has not taken a position on GPO or WEP and neither supports nor opposes either piece of legislation. AARP’s public policies are recommended by its all volunteer National Legislative Council and approved by its volunteer Board of Directors. The Board has considered the issues but chose not to adopt policy on either the government pension offset (GPO) or the windfall elimination provision (WEP). Many teachers and public employees have been told they are being singled out for unfair treatment, but the issue is complex and if there were an injustice, AARP would be there fighting to correct it.

 

Washington Post ViewPoint : John Rother, AARP's Director of Policy and Strategy, on Social Security

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
13,537 Views
111
Report
Reply
Contributor

In my personal case, I worked 7 years at state jobs, and 29 years of "substantial income", with Social Security, plus 5 or so years of less than substantial income, and 5 years of unemployment.

 

I cashed out the pension, many years ago, because I was unemployed. So, my state pension is $0.

 

However, because I only have 29 years of "substantial income", I am penalized $45 a month because I do not have 30 years of substantial income. Funny thing is, in my first year of full time employment, if I made an extra $1500, I would have had 30 years of "substantial income".

 

So, for the erest of my life, I lose $45 a month, because I did not earn $1500 extra in 1979.

 

This is where WEP is very unfair. I am not "double dipping", which is why Congress passed this monstrosity, in 1983, in teh first place. Unless, peopel think zero dollars have a new value besides nothing.

 

I never bothered to conetst it, because of the three hour wait time sjust to get hold of anyone at Social Security. Judging, from what I read here, Congress made teh WEP formula so complicated, as well as teh rules, you need to be a CPA to understand it.

 

Unlike some who posted here, I do not have any pension, and I am affected by the WEP.

 

Finally, I am afraid what Congress will come up with if they decide to make chnages; I may end up getting penalized even more. Unlike the people they serve, the ultra rich, $45/monthpays my condo insurance.

0 Kudos
4,246 Views
0
Report
Reply
Contributor

Here we are almost all the way through January 2019.  The Congressmen are "busy" re introducing legislation to pacify their constitutents knowing full well that because this bill will cost MONEY, and only reflects those of us who are retired will ultimately GO NOWHERE.  I am amazed with every day that passes, and that more and more people who have worked are getting SCREWED by the law passed in 1983, and yet those people WE send to Congress blow us off.  What is it going to take to get some action to relieve us from this financial burden?  

 

If all the cries about how unfair determinations are made regarding the manner in which Social Security COLA's are figured GO NOWHERE, how can we as a relatively small segment of this country's population ever expect any help regarding GPO/WEP.  

 

I live in Florida a state with many retired federal workers and in spite of that those members of Congress are not the least bit interested in co-sponsoring or otherwise endorsing legislation which would support help for us.    Without a doubt, the current workforce in this country had better be putting away significant amounts of money, or making wise investments because if they are to depend upon any help from the federal government they will end up on the welfare rolls as a receiver of assistance.  This country gives  "free" aid to countries all over the world, and yet refuses to care for the workforce which helped to build the economic system which built this Nation.  

 

Where did the principle of hard work and contributing to one's "golden years" go wrong? 

0 Kudos
5,552 Views
12
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@SteveT934531 wrote:

  I am amazed with every day that passes, and that more and more people who have worked are getting SCREWED by the law passed in 1983, . . . . .  What is it going to take to get some action to relieve us from this financial burden?  

 

If all the cries about how unfair determinations are made regarding the manner in which Social Security COLA's are figured GO NOWHERE, how can we as a relatively small segment of this country's population ever expect any help regarding GPO/WEP.  

 

I live in Florida a state with many retired federal workers and in spite of that those members of Congress are not the least bit interested in co-sponsoring or otherwise endorsing legislation which would support help for us.    Without a doubt, the current workforce in this country had better be putting away significant amounts of money, or making wise investments because if they are to depend upon any help from the federal government they will end up on the welfare rolls as a receiver of assistance.  This country gives  "free" aid to countries all over the world, and yet refuses to care for the workforce which helped to build the economic system which built this Nation.  

 

Where did the principle of hard work and contributing to one's "golden years" go wrong? 


You didn't get screwed by the invention of the WEP - you got a more accurate formula that the previous one based on the amount of time you worked under a Social Security contributing entity.  You did NOT pay into the Social Security system while ONLY working for the Government affiliated entity.

 

People in this situation perhaps need a manually figured formula because you are outliers.  You are not low income earners like the OLD formula used.  You may have worked under the SS system for 10 - 30 years and the WEP adjust for these years of SS participation and contributions.  Those that only worked a few years under the SS system get the most reduction and those who worked longer under the SS system get less of a deduction.  When a person worked under the SS system for 30 - 35 years, they have little to NO WEP reduction.  I have a friend who 1st worked under the SS system via an employer. then he went to work for a government entity with a pension program.  He recoginized the problem and so he began a sole-proprietor business and worked there in his off time from the government job and paid in both parts of contributions (employer/employee).  He fulfilled over 35 years under the SS system and got his pension too.  He has NO WEP deduction.

 

The SS system is a DIRECT contributory system; it isn't free - don't contribute, don't get vested  and you get nil. While you as a government worker were off working for a government entity that didn't participate in the SS system, you were still contributing to and earning a pension while those under the SS sytem were contributing to and earning their benefit.  Both were working hard but developing their golden years retirement in a different way.  Or as my friend, doing both and receiving both.

 

You are still getting the SS benefit if you worked long enough to be vested in the SS system.

In fact, the WEP may not be off that much if at all based on the number of years which you worked under the SS system. 

 

Come up with a fairer (?) formula, maybe a manually figured one, and send it to your Congressman for consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
5,466 Views
11
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

I see what you're saying, and in some cases, it would be correct. In my case, it is a penalty. Everyone's circumstances are different. 

0 Kudos
3,328 Views
0
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

This is not accurate.  I worked and paid into Social Security beginning at age 15 and worked at SS contributed jobs until I turned 65.  During that time I also worked part time at the Postal Service which pays me a pension only slightly larger than I expected to draw from Social Security.  I now get $252 monthly from Social Security instead of well over the $900 my annual statements led me to believe I was getting.  I've given up medical insurance and now live very minimally.  I appealed the SS decision to no avail. Their math differs greatly from yours.

0 Kudos
3,331 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@SusanS26428 wrote:

This is not accurate.  I worked and paid into Social Security beginning at age 15 and worked at SS contributed jobs until I turned 65.  During that time I also worked part time at the Postal Service which pays me a pension only slightly larger than I expected to draw from Social Security.  I now get $252 monthly from Social Security instead of well over the $900 my annual statements led me to believe I was getting.  I've given up medical insurance and now live very minimally.  I appealed the SS decision to no avail. Their math differs greatly from yours.


If you worked at jobs covered by Social Security where payroll taxes were paid by you and your employer for 30 years AND YOU MADE SUBSTANTIAL EARNING, then you are not affected by the WEP.

It is my guess that the last part of this equation might not be met.  That is to say, you have to make "substantial earning"  as defined on an annual basis by SSA.

 

This is a (2) page pamphlet from SSA explaining it - the charts by year are at the end of page 2.

- these are yearly earnings.

 

Social Security 2019 Publication: Windfall Elimination Provision - Substantial Earnings by Year and ...

 

 

 

0 Kudos
3,347 Views
0
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor


@SusanS26428 wrote:

This is not accurate.  I worked and paid into Social Security beginning at age 15 and worked at SS contributed jobs until I turned 65.  During that time I also worked part time at the Postal Service which pays me a pension only slightly larger than I expected to draw from Social Security.  I now get $252 monthly from Social Security instead of well over the $900 my annual statements led me to believe I was getting.  I've given up medical insurance and now live very minimally.  I appealed the SS decision to no avail. Their math differs greatly from yours.


How they calculated what you got is questionable. I paid in for maybe 10 years and I get $236.

How many years to you pay into SS? 

0 Kudos
3,353 Views
0
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

There is nothing fair about taking away anyone's survivor benefits no matter how you look at it. As someone pointed out, if the rationale for cutting survivor benefits is that one spouse didn't pay into the system, then public employees are being penalized for working (and contributing to society) when a non-working spouse gets to collect. Further, if your rationale for the WEP and GPO is that it's somehow unfair for public employees to collect from two different types of  retirement plans (as opposed to two accounts from the same type of plan like private sector people do) then why aren't we also offsetting private sector employees' benefits if they get income from a 401k in addition to their Social Security?

 

I'd also like to point out the error in suggesting that public workers haven't paid into social security and should therefore not get anything in return. Many government jobs require advanced degrees and private sector experience before you can get hired. Teaching requires at minimum a Bachelor's degree, and many states require Masters' degrees. If you analyze many government employees' work histories, you'll find that many have worked their way through college and have taken on debt in many cases. They contributed to Social Security during those years. Many also hold second jobs to pay down debt and support their families. In my case, my state's government began taking Social Security out of my check in addition to my Government retirement contributions. Fortunately, that saved me from the dreaded GPO. On the other hand, it also reduced my salary. From that point on, I continued to pay into social security at a rate that would allow me to count those years toward the 30 required to eliminate the impact of WEP.  However, because they made a decision to just apply this to all employees without considering each person's age, the only way I will benefit from this is if I work many years beyond what I'd planned on working. The WEP and GPO provisions just need to go away. Social Security already has a built-in means of calculating your benefit based on what you pay in without the WEP and GPO. It is unfair to single out a class of employees and treat them differently.

 

The public hears about misspending in government or the occasional executive making a ridiculous salary, and they think government pensions are like winning the lottery. The fact is, many people work in education and state governments for decades at salaries below many public sector jobs without getting regular raises or bonuses. Most rank and file jobs have ceilings on what you can make, and often the people making big salaries are political appointees who are short-term. The people we depend on to keep things running regardless of who is in charge are the ones who are hurt the most by the WEPs and GPOs. That "windfall" we make as a result of being a public employee isn't as much as you would think it is. The WEP and GPO simply punishes people for choosing a career serving the public or teaching.

0 Kudos
3,490 Views
0
Report
Reply
Contributor

Social security is “free” if you are the stay at home spouse of a contributor.  So working people get penalized but many stay at home spouses, who are not low income wage earners get a free ride?  This of course is more related to WEP’s evil twin, GPO.  There is no rationale for taking away survivorship benefits.  Gail, I’m glad your friend was so informed and able to plan for a well earned retirement.  Many of us got no information which would have prompted further research and planning—or if they did, it was in the mice type that legally covered employers. 

0 Kudos
5,155 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@AcC117647 wrote:

Social security is “free” if you are the stay at home spouse of a contributor.  So working people get penalized but many stay at home spouses, who are not low income wage earners get a free ride?  This of course is more related to WEP’s evil twin, GPO.  There is no rationale for taking away survivorship benefits.  Gail, I’m glad your friend was so informed and able to plan for a well earned retirement.  Many of us got no information which would have prompted further research and planning—or if they did, it was in the mice type that legally covered employers. 


You think a home ("non-working" ) spouse doesn't contribute to the worker or the household???  These days it could be a male or female that are deemed the stay at home spouse.

 

They aren't getting a free ride - a SS Spousal benefit is only 1/2 of what the worker covered under the SS system gets. 

 

Personally, I am a proponent of splitting the SS benefit (by SS #) during the working years 50/50 and then this applicable amount could follow (whichever) spouse thru life - no matter if there is a divorce. 

 

The GPO is just the (government employee) survivors' WEP - they get part of the deceased beneficiary's Social Security benefit since they paid into the SS system during their working years and ALL their own government pension.  There are also several instances where the GPO is not applicable - with the biggest one being IF the government employee paid into their pension which some government employers did this way.

 

Yes, I am sorry that ALL government employees were either ill informed or not informed of the consequesnces of different types of government retirement plans - federal, state and local.  But in my conversations with many of them - I think they were looking at the bottom line and the simplest line.

 

The annuity payment for CSRS retirees is designed to be their only income whereas

FERS retirees have the annuity, the thrift savings plan, and Social Security benefits.

CSRS has much larger annuity payments.

FERS employees pay considerably less for their annuities;but they have other vehicles to which add to this retirement benefit.

 

All I am saying is the WEP and the GPO are formulas which have to be used since people in this situation are outlier - meaning differ from the regular SS benefit figuring formula. 

0 Kudos
3,477 Views
2
Report
Reply
Contributor

Got it, A wife stays at home making sandwiches and doing laundry while couples in other families both work. Sounds to me like someone considers Social security welfare. If you didn't earn it you shouldn't get it. You want my working family to pay for your sandwich makers retirement? Not right. That's welfare and entitlement, not Social security as it should be. You want it then get a job!

shep

0 Kudos
3,338 Views
1
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@shep5556 wrote:

Got it, A wife stays at home making sandwiches and doing laundry while couples in other families both work. Sounds to me like someone considers Social security welfare. If you didn't earn it you shouldn't get it. You want my working family to pay for your sandwich makers retirement? Not right. That's welfare and entitlement, not Social security as it should be. You want it then get a job!

shep


It has been that way since 1939.  It is not designed to be a Retirement plan -

A spouse shares 50/50 - you know, what's mine is yours - the only thing we don't do is divide up the reported income on the tax form 50/50 - which I think they should for life stuff that may come later on - like divorce.

 

Social Security History of Benefits - Additions and Changes

Benefit Expansions

Year

Type of Benefit

Modification of Benefit

Note: Years shown refer to year that change was enacted into law--effective dates may differ.
1935Individual retirement benefits at age 65
Lump-sum refund provision for retirement before 1942
Lump-sum death benefit
 
1939Wives age 65 or older
Children under age 18, if student from 16-17
Widows age 65 and older
Widowed mother at any age if caring for eligible child
Surviving Children under age 18
Dependent parents age 65 or older, if no surviving widow or child under age 18
0 Kudos
3,338 Views
0
Report
Reply
Contributor

GAIL 1 offered a very thorough explanation of the theory behind WEP legislation.  I now have a clear picture of why it came about.  I guess in my situation I am within less than three years of having sufficient employment under Social Security coverage to escape WEP entirely.  Because of my particular situation the impact of WEP is minimum, however even if the current formula works to my advantage, personally I feel that it was my decision to be a part of the workforce long enough should not subject me or others in the same category to ANY penality.  It is what it is and if no changes come about I should just learn to appreciate the position I am in.

0 Kudos
5,479 Views
1
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

I'm glad that it's working out for you. In my case, my state government started taking out both Social Security AND teacher pension when I was in my late forties, which substantially reduced my takehome pay at a time when I was finally getting ahead in life. In order to escape the WEP, I'll have to work until age 72, assuming my lymphoma doesn't take me first. There's no way I can look at this situation and be thankful for it.

 

To make matters worse, if you look at the WEP chart, you'll see that over time, the maximum amount they take out of your SS benefits is determined by age brackets, so you would think the more years you have in, the less money they would take out. But if you look closely at the table, you see that every calendar year, the maximum increases. So, for example, anyone with 20 or fewer years in 2016 might lose $428 per month. In 2017, $442, in 2018 $447... and so on.  

 

So in my situation, while they're taking out SS at the highest rates I've ever paid in my lifetime, if I should have to retire because of my health, I'll end up losing about $5,556.00 a year in benefits just because I was an educator. By the way, if you become disabled, the WEP still applies. This is basically like having to pay an additional $5,556 tax every year for the rest of your life.

0 Kudos
3,300 Views
0
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

Susan Sterling <susan26428@gmail.com>
2:14 PM (2 minutes ago)
 
 
to WEP.Feedback
 
 
 
I paid enough into my Social Security to draw well over $900 and that was factored into what I believed would be a comfortable retirement life.  I worked before, during and after my Civil Service job. Imagine my shock when I realized I was only going to draw a bit over $300 and now, turning 65, $134 comes out of that.  I never used to understand why elderly people had to choose between food and electric until now. I can't afford any 'gap' medical insurance, and in no way will I have the finances to live a long life, much less a stress-free and enjoyable one, and heaven forbid I get really sick.  I guess this is why some people choose death as well. 
 
WEP needs to be repealed - I don't understand why the powers that be admit it was a mistake, but no one seems to be able to fix it.  I only get a 'robo reply' from my elected officials with a promise of followup.  But no followup comes. 
 
Please, help us!
4,885 Views
38
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Please submit your personal stories on the impact of WEP and any comments to: WEP.Feedback@mail.house.gov   and provide input to the Committee!  

 

They need to hear our stories and the personal impact.  Please also send your stories to your Congressional Representatives and Senators.    Confront them at town hall meetings, write, e-mail and call.  They can feign ignorance and pretend its a harmless law as long as there is no "uproar".

 

I've also contacted my Congressional Representative asking for assistance in getting a detailed breakdown of the WEP reduction on my SS payment.  If you will note, this is never itemized or provided and I have had no success in obtaining it from either SocSec or OPM.  It certainly seems since this is a formulated deduction from earned benefits, the SocSec payment summary should show the actual earned benefit and then the itemized deductions.   (and yes I know they have a table that shows the "maximum" they can deduct based on years of additional work. Still say this should be printed on the statements.)

6,297 Views
36
Report
Reply
Contributor

Actually, there is a fromula they use. It can be found at: https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/wep-chart.html

 

Effectively, you have to work 30 years of what Social Security called "substantial income":. This document conatins the above chart and a chart of substantial income,  by year: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10045.pdf

 

So, let's say you worked 25 years paying into Social Security, and you turned 62, in 2013, your Social Security woudl be reduced $237.30/month, becaus eof teh WEP.

 

Of course, each year Social Security has a COLA, the WEP amount will contunue to educe your benefits. However, your WEP amount will not increase, with teh COLA. Onec your WEP penalty is determined, it remains the same. In the above example, $237.30/month.

 

So, depedening how long you were reciving Social Security, you can multiply the WEP penalty amount, noted in the chart, by the number of months you recived benefits, to  determine teh full penalty. Unfortunately, the chart only goes back to 1990. So, again using the above example, if you have been reciving Social Security for 5 years, and penalized for those 5 years, then your total WEP penalty would be 60 * 237.30 = $14,238.

 

As you can see this can add up quickly. It is especially painful if you withdrew your pension, as a lump sum, years ago and they still penalize you with the WEP. Considering teh average Social Security income is about $1400/month, the WEP effectively wipes out a year of potential Social Security income for a retiree, at 62, who did so with 25 years of Social Security substantial income, ret iring at 62 in 2013.

 

As many here pointe dout, the WEP comes as a surprise and is a very regressive penalty for those who worked in both the public and private sector. The longer Congress delays the repeal, the more expensive it woudl be to compensate those affected.

 

Finally, when Social Security determines your initial benefits, the WEP monthly penalty is indicated as aprt of the benefit letter.

 

By the way, if Congress is proposing to compensate people retroactively $50 or $100/month for each month of teh penalty, it will not come close to the lost income. unless you have 28 or 29 years of substantial income.

0 Kudos
6,595 Views
35
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Thanks!  I do have that information.  I believe the deduction should be reflected on the SocSec payment summary and not hidden.  This is an actual deduction from the earned benefit and should be shown as such.

8,097 Views
34
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

I agree. I called Social Security asking for information, and that individual could not answer my questions. I explained I simply wanted to know which years in my history would count toward eliminating my WEP, and the individual on the phone could not answer that question. He had access to my account but couldn't answer. I'm not certain that even they know what they're doing with this. There should be more transparency.

0 Kudos
3,331 Views
31
Report
Reply
Contributor

Make an appointment with your local SS office.  They could probably help you better.

0 Kudos
3,261 Views
28
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Thanks to everyone with their thoughtful advice.  My Congressional office was able to get the exact amount of my earned benefit (based on my POST government work) and the amount of the WEP deduction.    Some responders seem "confused" about why we believe this deduction to be a wrongful taking.   For me it's very simple-  the earned Social Security payment is based entirely on work performed AFTER I retired from Federal Service.  I earned my Federal retirement based on 30 years of Federal service.   AFTER I retired I formed my own company and have paid into Social Security for the past 15 years in an amount more than double the total required to reduce the WEP to minimum.   My WEP reduction is currently 32.6% of what I am entitled to based on my reported earnings.

Please urge your representatives to support repeal of the WEP legislation.

 

0 Kudos
3,350 Views
27
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@mommak101 wrote:

Thanks to everyone with their thoughtful advice.  My Congressional office was able to get the exact amount of my earned benefit (based on my POST government work) and the amount of the WEP deduction.    Some responders seem "confused" about why we believe this deduction to be a wrongful taking.   For me it's very simple-  the earned Social Security payment is based entirely on work performed AFTER I retired from Federal Service.  I earned my Federal retirement based on 30 years of Federal service.   AFTER I retired I formed my own company and have paid into Social Security for the past 15 years in an amount more than double the total required to reduce the WEP to minimum.   My WEP reduction is currently 32.6% of what I am entitled to based on my reported earnings.

Please urge your representatives to support repeal of the WEP legislation.

 


It will not be repealed - you are not entitled to a windfall.

Your Social Security benefit calculation starts by looking at how long you worked and how much you made each year. This earnings history is used to calculate your Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) and the calculation includes the highest 35 years of earnings history that you have.

 

If your earnings were NOT covered by SS for any year  - they are not included in the calculation - instead, you get a ZERO - but the AIME is still figured on 35 years. 

Because you were employed, just not covered under Social Security, you do not qualify for the minimum benefit because that is for low income earners who were covered by Social Security in those 35 years of work history.

 

0 Kudos
3,375 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Somebody PLEASE tell me WHY you feel the WEP or even the GPO is unfair ???

By the numbers - not just some made up reason or whinning about what you might have thought during your working years. 

 

I am sorry that perhaps many of you were in the dark -

But it seems so logical that if you and your employer are NOT paying into the SS system - you get NO benefit.  A glace at your paycheck stub should have clued you in -

 

If you worked under both system, you do have some SS benefits coming if you worked long enough at the substantial earning annual figure to qualify.   The ONLY thing that the WEP and the GPO do is reduce your (regularly) figured SS benefit by those years where you did not pay into the SS system.  Simple as that -

0 Kudos
3,520 Views
2
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

You really don't understand how the WEP works.  No one is whining, we are simply addressing a gross injustice that needs rectifying.

Do/or did you receive your annual statement from SocSec detailing your eligible earnings and what your Social Security payment would be upon retirement?   I did.  After retiring from Federal service,  I saw on that annual statement  that having my own business was building value in SocSec.  My Federal retirement did not do so, as I am under the "old" CSRS system(which I might point out,  is thus not "double-dipping" into SocSec which was the basis for the WEP's inception).  

As sole proprietor of my own business,  I contribute into SocSec as BOTH the employer and the employee, and that's okay since it was building that value. I saw future payment amounts on that annual statement increase a bit every year as I continued to work.  Once I began receiving SocSec, and only because I am a Federal retiree, the calculated SocSec payment I have earned (YES, EARNED)  was reduced by WEP.  And keep in mind, our monthly SocSec statements do not show this as a deduction, the amount shown as earned on prior annual statements is simply diminished. For What?   Because I continue to work and contribute into the SocSec system?   My Congressional office was able to obtain my true calculated earned payment from the Soc Sec adminsitration.  The amount based strictly on my earnings history which I would be receiving without the WEP deduction.  (BTW- I have in almost 15 years earned more than double the total "substantial earnings" required for the  30 years relief of WEP.  Which also means I have paid more in employee and employer contributions than the 30 year requirement!)  What right does the government have to seize any amount of what I have, according to them, rightly earned?  

This is truly a seizing of assets with little recourse. 

If you aren't impacted, then at least be empathetic enough to support those that are.  The most seriously impacted are teachers and first-responders all across the Country.  We have to work together to get this bad legislation repealed!

 

 

 

4,204 Views
0
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

Hello:  I am replying to your completely "misinformed" statement about what we WEP'ers are complaining of so you have clarification as well as your non-sympathizers.

 

First, when the government penalizes those under WEP, they are computing it as follows:  (1) by the years you have worked with substantial earnings; and (2) by the year in which you retired.  

We "WEP'ers" if I can use that term understand that 0 years are not counted.  However, when we WEP'ers receive our SS statements for retirement, they indicate a certain amount which ALREADY accounts for those "0" years,  HOWEVER, what happens after THAT is that if we have less than 30 years of covered substantial service (reality vs our printout), we are then PENALIZED according to the yearly grid.

 

Let me give you MY for instance:  I retired in 2014 with 21 years of "covered Social Security" earnings.  Because I receive a public service pension, my "rightful" contribution "taking into account the non-covered years" should have been $965.00.  However, since I was victimized by WEP, my "rightful" pension which accounted for those "0" years but happened only to be 21 years, was reduced by $408.00 per month!!

 

I am talking about "rightful" earned pensions, not freebies.  For more education, please visit Social Security's WEP chart at: www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/wep-chart.html.

 

I am sure if it was YOU in the same situation, you would want your full "rightful" benefit, would you not?  We are accounting for the "0" years in the WEP calculation.  Social Security already does that when they give you your retirement estimate.  

 

And for further information, once you visit the above chart, you will "find" that the WEP penalties ALSO increase yearly with inflation.  They are not stagnant.

 

I hope this rests any confusion you non-WEP sympathizers have about us?  Visit the above chart and you will see why we are all mad.  Because of the government "theft" of our funds.

 

Thank you.

3,581 Views
0
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

I agree completely with you that it should be repealed. No matter how you look at it, the bottom line is that everyone else's SS benefits are calculated based on what they paid in and how many years they paid in. Ours should be the same.  I think some people who don't experience this for themselves can't fathom the full impact of this.

 

I also wonder if the people who think the WEP is a good thing only support it because they worry that if we were allowed to have the benefits we paid for, they think it threatens the stability of their system.  Whether or not that would happen, I can't say for sure, but SS functioned fine for years before the WEP was introduced.

 

I think many people who support the WEP would freak out if their income taxes shot up by $400 or more each month. Well, that's about what's happening to us.

 

If I could retire now, I would lose over $400 a month because of the WEP, and it will only get worse because they increase it every year. Those increases continue even as you work more years toward the 30 that are required to escape the WEP. In a sense, it's like running up a down escalator. If they don't get rid of the WEP, they ought to at least allow those of us who cannot draw full SS benefits to be exempt from paying into the system. 

0 Kudos
3,340 Views
22
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@woodlandgrace wrote:

. . . . . No matter how you look at it, the bottom line is that everyone else's SS benefits are calculated based on what they paid in and how many years they paid in. Ours should be the same. 

 

I also wonder if the people who think the WEP is a good thing only support it because they worry that if we were allowed to have the benefits we paid for, they think it threatens the stability of their system.  Whether or not that would happen, I can't say for sure, but SS functioned fine for years before the WEP was introduced.

 

I think many people who support the WEP would freak out if their income taxes shot up by $400 or more each month. Well, that's about what's happening to us.

 

If I could retire now, I would lose over $400 a month because of the WEP, and it will only get worse because they increase it every year. Those increases continue even as you work more years toward the 30 that are required to escape the WEP. In a sense, it's like running up a down escalator. If they don't get rid of the WEP, they ought to at least allow those of us who cannot draw full SS benefits to be exempt from paying into the system. 


You were exempt from paying into the system when your government employer was building your pension for you instead of paying into Social Security.  If you wanted BOTH, then you and your government employer should have been paying into both.  The WEP doesn't apply to government employees who's government employer paid into both - in fact, there are some that have

  • (1) a pension
  • (2) Social Security and
  • (3) an employee type retirement savings plan

Because they paid into all three.

 

No, your benefit, because of your (non) Social Security government employment, cannot be figured like everybody else's who have worked their whole career under the Social Security system.  That was what was wrong with the calculations BEFORE the WEP - figuring it like everybody elses gave (non) Social Security covered government eployees a WINDFALL - that was the reason why the Windfall Elimination Provision came into being.

 

HOW did you pay for (all) of this Social Security benefit? 

Whatever way you did it, You worked a few years under the SS program but work the majority of the time under a (non) Social Security government employer.  Other people work their whole career under the Social Security program.

 

You have to have at least 30 years of Social Security covered earning at (government defined annually) substantial earnings - I assume, that is what you are trying to do now - reach as close to that point as you can.

 

Yes, get the SSA to tell you how they figure your AIME - they use 35 years of income to figure it. In those years that NO Social Security  earnings were reported, you get a big fat ZERO.

What is the Social Security AIME ( Average Indexed Monthly Earnings )

What is Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME)

Average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) is a calculation used to determine the primary insurance amount (PIA), which is used to value an individual's social security benefits. The average indexed monthly earnings takes the top 35 highest earning years up to age 60 and indexes it for wage growth, and then averages it to get a monthly amount. The AIME tries to approximate earnings over a lifetime at today's wage levels.

 

 

 

0 Kudos
3,365 Views
21
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

Hi there:  Another "WEP'er" responding.  If you retired in 2019, with "20 years or less" of substantial covered service, you would lose:  $463.00 per month.  

 

Visit: www.ssa.gov/planner/retire/wep-chart.html to see it.  Unbelievable, right?  Well, as you WEP AARP'ers are reading this, you should be boycotting AARP and "supporting" The Senior Citizens League b/c they are trying to help us.

 

Write to:  Richard Neal" who is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and tell him (BTW, he is in favor of repealing WEP or so he claims) you want a House vote on the repeal amendment -- to be at the House Ways and Means Committee this year.

 

Got that folks -- all of you reading -- you guys and gals -- "WEP'ers" like me.  Without your buzz to Congress, they just patronize us.  We need to keep fighting.  

4,166 Views
1
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

Finally! Thank you @ Info Seeker. I came here in hope of finding resources and support, and instead, I was met with criticism. I agree that AARP doesn't seem to be the advocacy organization it claims to be, and given the tone of its forums, I can't help but wonder if there aren't some ...shall we say contributors with conflicting interests who are here to discourage people. I see this in other social media forums as well. Again. Thank you.

0 Kudos
4,155 Views
0
Report
Reply