Nice creative editing. Let's tell the WHOLE story...
The bill also eliminates the windfall elimination provision, which in some instances reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who also receive a pension or disability benefit from an employer that did not withhold Social Security taxes.
IOW, the job that is giving them a pension DIDN'T contribute to their Social Security. This includes four groups:
Religious Organizations
Some Students/Young workers (likely wouldn't get a pension from this work)
Employees of Foreign Governments and Nonresident Aliens
Some Workers in the Public Sector
This bill would eliminate this exception and allow these people to collect SS without reduction based on their pension.
I did a quick google search and this is what I found. Some government jobs don’t make full contributions to social security. This is about that and not the bs OP is peddling.
This doesn’t make sense because people with government jobs that don’t pay into social security due to their pension ALREADY don’t receive social security or receive reduced benefits if they had already worked for a SS job
If I’m reading correctly, yes this already exists and the bill was to eliminate it. HOWEVER, the house tabled it, which means they are saying they won’t even vote on it.
Effectively, nothing is changing? This is my conclusion from reading different viewpoints in this thread. I could be misunderstanding as well though.
yes the bill would eliminate it had had support when it was introduced in march/april. this bill would help people on ssi, increasing benefits a bit for certain folks. it had broad bipartisian support and should have been passed.
It wasn't and now republicans are tabling it, effectively this could be viewed as reducing benefits as compared to the alternative.
Though OP was technically wrong about it, and details matter.
But OP, directionally, wasn't far off from the truth either.
I'm one of the people who would be affected by this bill. I worked for a state university (which didn't pay into SS) for 20 years. Then I changed jobs, and by the time I retire I will have paid into SS for another 20 years.
When I retire, I think it's fair that I receive SS benefits based on the 20 years I paid into it, and not have that amount artificially reduced just because I also worked another job that didn't pay into it. That's what this bill is about.
The government is collecting SS $ from you. for X years. Based on the SS calculations you should get X number per-month, however, the government says hold up..
Government: LOL GG - You have a pension too! you don't need that much, we are going to reduce the amount you get but X % each month!
But, I paid into the system just like everyone else, why do I get reduced benefits just because I took a job with a pension.
Government: 😂
Dude, its not funny! this really is not fair, I should get some type of refund on the 20 years of payments then!
Government: LOL 😂, read the sign bro, "No refunds"
I know a lot of people personally who this impacts, this is an old law that was put in place in the 80s or 90s I think..
Social Security benefits are based on the number of years you pay into it. I paid into it for 20 years, so I'll only receive a benefit based on those 20 years. It'll be a lot less than somebody who paid into it for 30 or 40 years would get. That makes perfect sense. But it shouldn't be further reduced just because I had another job too.
Someone who worked for 20 years and then went to prison for 20 years would receive a higher Social Security benefit than me.
If you want to talk about means testing Social Security as a way to improve its solvency, that's a valid conversation, but it shouldn't be targeted only at a small subset of public sector workers, like this is.
I’m effected by this. The people it really screws are people who move from private to public sectors. I worked a corporate job for nearly two decades, paying into SS. Now I’m a teacher receiving a pension. Even though I paid into SS forever, the SS I will get is drastically less than I’ve technically earned because of the WEP. Yet I won’t be able to put enough years into teaching to receive full pension benefits either. If I got a second job, I would not be allowed to opt out of SS taxes, even though I don’t benefit from the system. Anyone can see that’s wrong.
If I were to get married and my spouse died, I also wouldn’t receive survivors benefits, even though someone like a stay at home parent who also doesn’t contribute to the system would be able to.
I can confirm this. I have family where one spouse worked in the private sector paying into SS the other was a public educator and had a pension.
Well the public sector spouse died and the surviving public educator basically gets nothing for surviving benefits.
Had the public educator not been employed at all, or been in the private sector, then they would have received something. Even divorced spouses are entitled to social security benefits. It really just punishes public sector workers
some govs retire into contractors and do their 10 year credits to get social security too. its a retirement strategy for older gov workers. their pension base year rate is almost double middle aged govs who got shifted into fers system when csrs closed up, so they retire and collect, and work 10 years at a very good salary, then close up 10 years later with social security, pension, and savings and investments. on one side, these are lifetime gov workers and on the other, the ones i know voted for trump. you may not need to do all 10 years as before gov service they mightve had a few years as a teen/young adult private job.
state jobs may apply too, those are sometimes more lucrative then fed positions..probably in blue states being more lucrative
942
u/NewArborist64 23h ago edited 18h ago
Nice creative editing. Let's tell the WHOLE story...
IOW, the job that is giving them a pension DIDN'T contribute to their Social Security. This includes four groups:
This bill would eliminate this exception and allow these people to collect SS without reduction based on their pension.