The bill to end the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset has passed its final Congressional step and will become law once President Biden signs it.
I have a few questions about this:
- What’s the effective date?
- Can Social Security implement this without manual recalculations?
- Were there any other provisions in the bill apart from WEP/GPO?
50 comments:
“These changes are effective for benefits payable after December 2023.” And of course no money to implement the change. So another mandate that will occupy and redirect the limited time and resources of Systems and PCs to implement. Plus start the phone calls and walk-ins demanding to know when they will get their money. And the influx of applications of people who never filed because they would have faced total offset.
Appears the effective date is 12/2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/82/text
Also there is going to be a made dash for the 100,000's of thousands of people who did not apply for spouses benefits knowing they would fully be offset. Some of these people will be subject to deemed filing and get retro back to 12/2023; other born prior to 01/02/1954 can only get 6 months retro and the protective filing date is going to control that.
Prepare your 1724's now, some dead people are getting Un-WEP'd
Also get ready if you are a CDB on a WEP'd record.
How about additional funding to implement this legislation? Thousands of individuals will be storming local SSA offices across our nation demanding their money. In addition, what happens if the individuals who passed away in their eligibility year? Finally, this legislation is helpful for a small percentage of individuals at the expense of many. The trust fund just got six months closer to insolvency.
This bill should have never been passed without raising the cap, cutting benefits or raising the retirement age to offset the costs. Now the legislators can enjoy their holidays while the trust fund is closer to insolvency. Wheels up!
There a number of individuals who live overseas and had their benefits reduced due to their foreign pension.
Typically to change pension information on a record a manual CIP input must be done on each record . Some can go through overnight while others except and a PC technician must review.
How about if the individual passed away, moved or changed bank accounts? A simple input will not suffice since some contact has to be made.
What a mess for the agency to figure out. There will be more traffic just inquiring about this change. Also a nice windfall to those that get a nice pension from a job that didn't contribute to social security, but also worked an additional job converted under social security. Having that second job standalone will provide higher social security benefit, but will drain the trust fund quicker.
I suspect they'll do a systems run to eliminate the offsets. However, the bigger problems are going to revolve around the people who didn't file (deemed filing rules were really ignored for a lot of these people which is going to result in open application issues, and many widows subject to total offset were discouraged from filing). And, there are even some people not eligible for RIB but who were eligible as a spouse or widow in total offset where they were officially told not to file by SSA because their Part B premiums could not be withheld from their annuities if they did. Have no clue how SSA will handle those cases -- probably could qualify for misinformation reopenings for them. This is going to be a nightmare.
And, many people who haven't filed and need to schedule an appointment are going to loose a month's worth of benefits if they don't do it by the end of this month.
Isn’t this legislation going incentivize some public sector employees to have “questionable “ earnings such as babysitting their grandchildren in order to receive Social Security benefits?
This makes me want to retire now, which I can but wanted to wait another 3 years. I am Generalist TE, a tue one. I handle both titles from IC to PE. This is going to be horrible! What are the chances BIDEN vetoes this?
And it will likely encourage expansion of those
jobs with no SS deduction since employees can get part-time jobs and get no-offset SS, just to drain trust fund even faster. So now we will all get our SS cut sooner, while those no longer WEP'd will be cut again in a few years anyway. Well, maybe it will motivate Congress to take action re-trust fund solvency sooner, (haha).
I filed by phone yesterday. I stupidly did not read the bill, which I've been watching since it was the bill of 2021; had I done so I would have filed last year. No one who has not filed already is getting payment back to 12/23.
SSA is a public agency whose purpose is to administer and "run" the SSA programs. Those programs are usually established by and governed by legislation. So new legislation is not a mandate, it is just another day at the agency and how things work. It is why SSA exists.
As to being all worried about "the trust funds" or "it should have been done differently for (fill in reason)" the US Congress has had decades to fix this in a better way and hasn't, so if the consequence is this more "brute force" fix, well, inactions have consequences. Kudo's to NARFE and the rest so involved for the patience (against years and years of inaction) to push this over the goal line. And this unanticipated legislative success may cause more serious folks on both sides to take the agency and programs more seriously, but I doubt it.
It sure is odd to see federal employees support the theft of earned benefits from other federal employees as well as local and state government employees. As to their concerns over the expense for trust funds having to pay back money that was unfairly withheld, should all step and grade increases for federal employees be withheld because they increase the federal debt? Of course, if they don't like that, they can get a job where raises depend on merit and productivity instead of getting older in the job.
NARFE is a one trick pony whose only existence was to eliminate GPO and WEP. I wish they would have concentrated their efforts to strengthening Social Security for all.
NARFE members just got a huge Christmas gift by raiding the trust fund with the help of Congress. Happy New Year!
> “It sure is odd to see federal employees support the theft of earned benefits from other federal employees as well as local and state government employees.”
Lmaooooo. Except the benefits weren’t earned and shouldn’t be treated as equally as those who paid FICA on ALL of their working income for ALL years. You’re a delusional goof.
Sign of the times… benefit a few at the expense of many!
It sounds like you really know very little about how benefits are calculated and the origin of the formula for calculating benefits. If you did, you would realize eliminating WEP/GPO is incredibly unfair and reckless.
WEP and GPO employees knew the rules before they started their careers. What’s unfair is that many individuals only source of retirement benefits are their Social Security benefits and that might be cut within ten years unless Congress acts.
Theft? Does that word apply in this situation….NO!
Tell that to all the senior citizens who could have their benefits cut.
One change that could have been made part of this but wasn't would be to force the State Employees to pay into Social Security at least going forward. That happened to Federal Employees in 1985, but only for new hires, and should have happened here.
Congressional passage of the bill is a historic victory for the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), which has been advocating for repeal of WEP and GPO for 40 years. It will bring substantial financial relief to federal retirees who have been unfairly penalized for their public service for decades.
40 years? Every employee knew the rules from day one! How is that unfair?
Please explain how insured status, a PIA, and reduced benefits are determined then tell me why that was not earned. It certainly didn't drop from the sky. It is not a loan or a grant. It is not a gift. It is not something that requires repayment. It is not an overpayment. Please do not try to disguise a social security benefit under any other name except as earned. To take that away to pay for or compensate for something else is theft.
Should all step and grade increases for federal employees be withheld because they increase the federal debt? To reduce increasing the federal debt would benefit the many at the expense of the few. Is that what you want?
“Credit for service.” In order to get credit for civilian retirement (federal pensions), for military and peace corps service, these feds have to buy back their service. Meaning, they pay towards their pensions based on what they earned in the military/peace corps. Same should apply here for an unWEP-ed Social Security pension. Pay SS taxes on allllll the money you earned. This is not a deserved or earned increase. Additionally, it’s so disappointing that Congress failed to understand how the Social Security formula for payments, awards those with fewer years of work. Lobbyists at work.
SSA retirement benefits are skewed towards lower income earners in the sense that lower income earners have more of their income replaced by RIB during retirement, that’s the whole idea of “bend points.” SSA benefits have an anti-poverty skew in them, in general. As far as WEP goes, a person who is subject to WEP “looks” like a long term low wage earner in the eyes of SSA, when they actually aren’t. They had plenty of earned income they weren’t required to pay FICA on vs an actual long term low wage earner who paid FICA on ALL their income for ALL their working years. Thus, those who are subject to WEP shouldn’t be treated as long term low wage earners, since they were NOT. Thats why WEP was originally implemented. You aren’t a long-term low wage earner if you had a government job that didn’t require you to pay FICA, thus you shouldn’t be treated as such in the eyes of SSA. Goofballs on here with pensions in the $5k-$8k a month range (I’ve seen them up to $10k-$12k per month) squabbling with SSA of their “rightful” extra $300 a month WEP offset. Boohoo, cry me a river when the average SSA benefit is like $1900 per month.
Secondly, as far as GPO is concerned, GPO offset, mathematically, was a 2/3 offset. Meaning 2/3 of the non-covered pension offset any viable SSA spousal/survivor benefit that may have been payable to the recipient. When we look at the broader picture, SSA recipients have a full 1:1 offset. Meaning that an SSA recipient doesn’t get their own retirement benefits AND their survivors benefit both, they get the higher of the two. So GPO recipients already had it better than their SSA counterparts.
I don’t know why you’re arguing on here with people who have years working at SSA and understand the mathematics behind WEP/GPO.
Some of you who obviously work for Social Security (as I did for 40 years) must realize how unfair it was to cut someone’s earned benefits by 60% under the WEP,also by penalizing the spousal/widows benefit under the GPO you took away the earned protection of the spouse (who in my case worked and paid into social security for 40 years
These provisions were truly unfair and hastily enacted.Trying for more than 20 years to fix them has not worked until now.It is very true that Congress just as hastily repealed them.Social Security saved a lot of money over the years by not paying these rightfully earned benefits,in one example 300,000 to a widow.
The entire system needs a fix,but this was the right start!
Well, a spalpel was necessary for WEP/GPO. Congress just applied a bone cutter. Now, excess benefits are bleeding out. I hope Congress makes a similar oops when I'm retirement age. I'll gladly accept benefits I should not be entitled to.
They didn’t “rightfully earn” anything. WEP is fair, as has been previously stated.
GPO is also fair, as has been previously stated.
The new changes are just a result of boomers crying about the rules now that they are retirement age. However, they full well knew the rules when they took jobs that didn’t require to pay into FICA.
Your average American working and paying into FICA should absolutely be irate at these changes. Just another giant grift of the rich(er) stealing from the poor(er).
Undeserved benefits also being received by those who earned most of income in LLCs
Well I guess if spousal/survivor benefits are not earned,neither are retirement,disability or Medicare as part of the social insurance package.We and our spouses paid into both pensions and social security.WEP and GPO stole money from our brave first responders-now they get what was rightfully theirs all along.Time to stop being jealous of someone else’s good fortune!
Jealous? Good fortune? Tell that to the widow who might get her benefits cut in a few years.
I don’t see campaign contributions to congressional supporters mentioned in this public release.
AFSCME working and retiree members have fought tenaciously for retirement security for all public service workers and have led the fight to repeal the unfair GPO-WEP provisions. In the past year alone, activists across the country made more than 8,000 phone calls and wrote more than 28,000 letters to their elected leaders to bring an end to these unfair cuts.
They have also shown their activism on the issue with rallies, online campaigns and more. That fight has now paid off.
The Windfall Elimination Provision corrects for the way Social Security benefits are calculated for low wage earners. It affects public employees who worked in government jobs from which SS taxes were not withheld. They receive pensions but who also worked at least 10 years in jobs that required them to pay into the SS system. Such workers appear in the Social Security system as though they earned far less over their lifetimes than they actually did, and since the program pays out a higher proportion of low earners’ incomes in benefits, they receive a larger retirement benefit than they otherwise would.
You should not receive SS benefits as if you were a long term low wage earner because you were not. WEP is fair, eliminating it is unfair.
Some senators who opposed the Social Security Fairness Act had expressed concerns about the pressures the additional costs would put on the program.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who earlier this week voted against moving the current version of the bill forward in the Senate, proposed an amendment to offset those costs by gradually raising the retirement age to 70 while also adjusting for life expectancy. Social Security's full retirement age — when beneficiaries receive 100% of the benefits they've earned — is currently age 67 for individuals born in 1960 or later.
"It is absurd to entertain a proposal that would make Social Security both less fair and financially weaker," Paul said at the time. "To undo the damage made by this legislation, my amendment to gradually raise the retirement age to reflect current life expectancies will strengthen Social Security by providing almost $400 billion in savings."
How about the widows/widowers who haven’t been paid for the last 40 years due to GPO!
They've been paid at least 50% more by their non covered pension. Had it been covered, they wouldn't have received any widow's/widower's benefits.
The repeal of GPO defeats the purpose of spouses/widow's benefits which is to support those who didn't work or work much.
Survivors that often have pensions paying them $50000-$80000 per year. Yes, I feel terrible for them. Again, not the low income earners their SSA earnings would suggest.
There is a reason why it took 40 years to pass this legislation. It’s the ultimate rob Peter to pay Paul. The backlash of eliminating WEP and GPO will be huge once the public understands the details. In the meantime, enjoy your Christmas windfall.
The same widow/widowers who have been receiving their fat pension checks? Oh, darn, let me play the world’s smallest violin. SSA widow/widowers don’t get both their retirement and survivors benefit, just the higher of two.
Oddly, same thing for GPO widow/widowers because they only get a 2/3 offset. If the SSA survivors benefit is higher than their GPO pension, well guess what, they would get some survivors benefit and STILL be better off than a regular SSA widow.
In short, people in this thread are crying “why don’t any of you think about the poor, rich, widower with an extremely generous pension!! He/she deserves to milk more money from SSA than people who actually paid FICA their whole life!! The humanity!!”
If they were in total GPO that means that just 2/3 of the pension was still higher than the widow(er) benefit that would have been payable. If that government pension payment had been an SS retirement benefit, they still would not have been eligible for a widow(er) benefit since their own RIB exceeded the amount of the widow(er) payment. They didn't lose anything and are now getting a big windfall.
Much talk about pensions and what is earned and not earned.The pensions were earned over years of work.The lower paying public service jobs caused many to work a second job .When they started a second job they were playing by the rules paying FICA taxes and earning their SS benefits.Then suddenly in 1983 the rules of the game were changed.What would have been fairer was to make these rules effective for employees who entered non covered employment after the rules went into affect.
Also many of us have earned some of our coverage through our military service.
Same with the GPO,the fact that we earned a pension from a non covered job should have no affect on the right to collect a spousal or widows benefit.
This was means testing.
The laws we were blatantly unfair and unfortunately took way too long to be corrected!
https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gs18e.html
1983 was a big year to “save” Social Security with revised formulas, bend points, taxation, increasing retirement age, and more to give a greater “needs based” layer to determine benefits. Of course, also add the new wrinkle in the 1983 law taxing social security benefits and only democrats voting to increasing that tax rate from 50% to 85% in 1993. Taxation began with adjusted income levels of $25,000 individual and $32,000 couples and never changed since 1984. More and more people had to pay taxes because of those unchanging 1984 numbers but that doesn’t affect those with low taxable income.
And don’t forget about Prouty benefits and making divorced spouses eligible for benefits with a minimum of 10 years of marriage instead of previous 20. Those changes served to negatively impact the trust funds but that must be OK compared to those who support continuing GPO and WEP because to end that theft would harm the trust fund.
The basic fact that harming those receiving government pensions is an acceptable group from which to steal earned benefits should have never been done. Government got away with that theft for several decades.
As Senator Schumer said about passing the Social Security Fairness Act, "The Senate finally corrects a 50-year mistake".
Please do not forget the fact that government got away with GPO and WEP theft for many years, even decades, for workers and their widows and widowers who had part of their earned social security taken from them. That money will never be recovered.
BRINGING HOME A WIN?
The best way to help lawmakers understand the problems with GPO and WEP has been to share the stories of our members.
“Without question, the work that our members have done on this issue and the willingness of NEA-Retired members to share their stories led to this victory,” says Marc Egan, director of NEA’s government relations department.
NEA members kept a spotlight on this critical issue, and amped up their activism in the last few years. Since the start of 2023, NEA members had hundreds of face-to-face conversations with lawmakers and rallied on Capitol Hill. In 2024 alone, members made hundreds of thousands of calls to encourage their members of Congress to support the Social Security Fairness Act.
This historic repeal of GPO and WEP will benefit the profession indefinitely, says Anita Gibson: “Our years of advocacy have finally fixed this, not only for our current retirees, but for future generations of educators.”
Theft? The rules were established on day one 40 years ago!
Don't be shocked when we see growth of non covered employment based on this move. Surely, WEP/GPO were at least partially responsible for many of these non covered pension plans from moving to covered plans. But now, those folks can have it all. That's a home run as O'Malley would have been proud of.
Post a Comment