Latest News
Support repeal of the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset
For those whose life’s work has been in a public service job which didn’t participate in the Social Security program, a big surprise may hit them later in life. Even if they have worked enough outside public service to earn Social Security benefits, those benefits could be reduced by as much as 50% due to a law called the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). And even if they are eligible for Social Security spousal or survivor’s benefits, that public service pension may severely reduce or even eliminate any Social Security benefits they would otherwise be entitled to because of another provision called the Government Pension Offset (GPO). In this article appearing in The Olympian (WA), reader William Wiley implores other readers to support repeal of WEP and the GPO (AMAC actively supports a bill now before Congress to do exactly that). Click here to read more.
I am a retired postal worker and receive an annuity from the federal government. Because I am under civil service retirement offset, I am forced to apply for social security at age 62. My federal annuity will be reduced when I become 62 whether I apply for social security or not. I was unpleasantly surprised when I was informed that my social security benefit will be reduced. No one at social security has given me a definitive reason for this reduction. I have paid social security taxes my whole working life. The only thing I can come up with is that I don’t have 30 years of “substantial earnings” according to social security. Is this an and/or provision? The way I read it seems to say 30 years of substantial earnings and employment where social security taxes weren’t paid. My federal annuity will also be reduced when I begin receiving social security benefits. I don’t think social security is correct in their determination. I am also a widow and struggle to make it now, I don’t know what it will be like once these changes take place. This provision assumes everyone takes a low wage side job so they can “double dip”. I was a low wage earner for about 15 years and while I made a decent wage working for the postal service, I wouldn’t say I got rich there.
Wanda:
As you suspect, your federal government pension may have been affected by the lack of “substantial earnings” from work covered by Social Security. Since the Windfall Elimination Provision applies to the first segment of your Social Security benefit calculation, you would need more than 30 years of “substantial earnings” in order to avoid this reduction. For 30 years or more with earnings considered substantial (see page two of the Social Security document at https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10045.pdf for the thresholds for substantial earnings), the 90% portion of this segment remains intact without reduction in your pension. For 20 years or less with substantial earnings, this first segment is reduced from 90% to 40%, with 5% increments occurring between 30 years and 20 years.
Gerry Hafer
AMAC Foundation, Inc.
Notice: The opinions and interpretations expressed in this message are the viewpoints of the message’s author, a trained advisor accredited under the National Social Security Advisors program of the National Social Security Association, LLC (NSSA). The author, the NSSA, and the AMAC Foundation are not affiliated with or endorsed by the United States Government, the Social Security Administration, or any other state government.
I am married to a teacher who earned Social Security benefits based on previous work experience; prior to deciding that her calling was to serve the public (students) as a teacher. The fact that a teacher (firefighter, police officer, city/county worker, or nurse) is denied the opportunity to receive a Social Security Spousal Benefit, as a result of the Government Pension Offset decision, is discriminatory and criminal. Discriminatory in that spouses that never paid a cent into Social Security are currently receiving Social Security Spousal Benefits; however, teachers (public servants), are denied the same opportunity solely because they decided to serve the public for a profession (calling). Criminal in that many public servants personally paid into Social Security and are still denied the Spousal Benefit solely based on being a public servant: not to mention those that didn’t pay in to Social Security; however, are being treated differently than the general public just because they chose to serve the public. The same is true for the Windfall Elimination Provision; whereby teachers (public servants) are denied Social Security benefits, despite the fact that they made all of the required contributions to earn Social Security benefits like all other’s receiving Social Security benefits currently, it is criminal! Making it even more criminal is that people that never paid a cent into Social Security are allowed to draw Social Security benefits: how is this different, that a person that never paid in to Social Security is allowed to draw Social Security benefits, while those that paid into Social Security are denied benefits because the WORK as a public servant.
Mr. Menze:
Thanks for your comments and for sharing your thoughts of Social Security’s Government Pension Offset (GPO) provision. This subject generates quite a bit of commentary from those affected by it, as well as by those affected by the Windfall Elimination Program (WEP). We know from this commentary that these provisions are hugely unpopular with AMAC’s constituency, and we’ve been adding these comments to our research notes on the subject. As you may be aware, AMAC has been advocating for Social Security changes for many years, and has been resolute in calling lawmakers’ attention to the need for (1) changes to address the long-term solvency problem facing the program, and (2) formula adjustments that can achieve better equalization of benefits for all beneficiaries. In fact, in an earlier edition of AMAC’s Social Security Guarantee Act, we supported complete repeal of both WEP and GPO as part of a compromise that would promise long-term solvency. This latter point was dropped from the Guarantee framework, along with several other adjustments that we feel are appropriate (specifically, elimination of the Retirement Earnings Test and indexing of the gross income thresholds for federal income tax on benefits). Despite their removal from the current proposal now being advocated, AMAC continues to collect supporting commentary for use in the future when negotiations unfold. In other words, we haven’t given up, but we well recognize that these types of adjustments must be offset by savings or income improvements in other areas of Social Security reform.
In the meantime, thanks again for your thoughts, we sincerely appreciate hearing from our readers.
Gerry Hafer
AMAC Foundation, Inc.
Notice: The opinions and interpretations expressed in this message are the viewpoints of the message’s author, a trained advisor accredited under the National Social Security Advisors program of the National Social Security Association, LLC (NSSA). The author, the NSSA, and the AMAC Foundation are not affiliated with or endorsed by the United States Government, the Social Security Administration, or any other state government.
“REPEAL: WEP AND GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET ! AMERICAN WIDOWED WOMEN WHO TEACH…NEED THEIR SOC SEC …..SURVIVOR BENEFITS….TO AVOID POVERTY !!!” Support: HR 1205, S 915, John Larson’s HR 1902 and Linda Sanchez’s POWR HR 1583. NANCY ALTMAN…needs to be in CHARGE of Soc Security !!! She knows and shares…the TRUTH !!!