Getting rid of WEP and GPO?

Texas Proud

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
18,536
This does not affect me at all... but I read about it here all the time....

It seems that there is enough in the House who wants to get it reformed... not sure if completely getting rid of it is the right thing but it does seem that it could be reformed...


 
Not that many people are affected by it (maybe 3 million), so I don't think the cost is all that large. In any event, why should some people still get treated unfairly to save the system? We should all sink or swim on the same tide.
 
As somebody who has paid SS taxes on every dollar I have ever earned, I would regard this as extremely unfair to me. It’s hugely unfair because it overlooks the bend points.
Your complaint is with the WEP, and I agree with your argument. In my opinion, it is the GPO that is the main problem. So long as we give spousal and survivor benefits to spouses who never worked (for whatever reason), we should give them to those who worked but just did not pay into the social security system because they were public employees. If you want to eliminate ALL spousal and survivor benefits, I will support you.
 
If you want to eliminate ALL spousal and survivor benefits, I will support you.
+1
That would be a step towards fairness. If the rationale for taxing SS is to make it equal to the way private pensions and annuities are taxed, then the same logic should apply for spousal and survivor benefits. That wouldn't be an outright elimination of them, but an actuarially neutral payout option would be appropriate IMO, similar to choosing joint life at the start of a pension or annuity. That would also "fix" the WEP and GPO complaints as part of a bigger adjustment.
 
Person A worked 20 years in Canada, then 20 years in USA blowing past the bend points

Person B drank beer for 20 years in Canada, then worked 20 years in USA blowing past the bend points

Person B gets larger SS as no WEP reduction, even though both worked the same job in the USA.

WEP is unfair.
 
Person A worked 20 years in Canada, then 20 years in USA blowing past the bend points

Person B drank beer for 20 years in Canada, then worked 20 years in USA blowing past the bend points

Person B gets larger SS as no WEP reduction, even though both worked the same job in the USA.

WEP is unfair.
In this example, Person A gets a nice size pension, and because of SS bend points, gets reduced SS. WEP is fair. It's those who have been "affected" who feel that it is unfair.
 
In this example, Person A gets a nice size pension, and because of SS bend points, gets reduced SS. WEP is fair. It's those who have been "affected" who feel that it is unfair.
Not paying a person for the 20 years they worked isn't fair.

Would be the same if they WEP'd SS because someone saved a lot of money. Having SS Look at something else unrelated to the 20 years a person worked paying into SS is not fair.
 
Not paying a person for the 20 years they worked isn't fair.

Would be the same if they WEP'd SS because someone saved a lot of money. Having SS Look at something else unrelated to the 20 years a person worked paying into SS is not fair.
WEP is only for government pensioners who have not paid into SS for the years that they worked in the government. At the end of the day, SS is a social "welfare" program designed to protect those who make less and hence having different bend points. If you are getting a government pension, that is taken into account in how much SS is reduced due to the bend points.
 
WEP is for Federal retirees and reduces their Social security payments by up to 50% plus, if they are eligible for SS, which is 40 quarters or more. I'm in that category, but I only have 36 quarters / credits. Estimating my SS benefits if I earned 6 more quarters (40 quarters), I'd be eligible for $560 / Month, but the WEP (Windfall Elimination Provision, signed in 1984 by Reagan) would reduce my SS payments to ~$155 / month.
At that rate, I'll DONATE the 34 quarters to those who need it, but if I go out and get my 6 quarters, I'll take my $155 / month for gas money.
All this was done, including taxing of SS benefits to, as they said, in the early Reagan years, to "Shore Up Social Security", including increasing the retirement age to 67. They'll NEVER get rid of it. WEP and the GPO.
 
Your complaint is with the WEP, and I agree with your argument. In my opinion, it is the GPO that is the main problem. So long as we give spousal and survivor benefits to spouses who never worked (for whatever reason), we should give them to those who worked but just did not pay into the social security system because they were public employees. If you want to eliminate ALL spousal and survivor benefits, I will support you.
Well there is nuance. They did not pay because they DID pay into an alternate system. So how much government largesse is enough?

Intriguingly GPO was passed as a fairness provision.
 
In this example, Person A gets a nice size pension, and because of SS bend points, gets reduced SS. WEP is fair. It's those who have been "affected" who feel that it is unfair.
I think it's fair also. But I don't think spousal benefits are fair. I don't care about the tired argument about it not being a high cost.
 
WEP is only for government pensioners who have not paid into SS for the years that they worked in the government. At the end of the day, SS is a social "welfare" program designed to protect those who make less and hence having different bend points. If you are getting a government pension, that is taken into account in how much SS is reduced due to the bend points.
WEP is not just for Federal Employees, it is for any pension earned from a job that did not pay into SS, including foreign jobs as mentioned in the Canada example above.

My wife started collecting her SS and got the full amount until her UK pension started and her SS was immediately reduced by WEP.

I have just applied for my SS and that also will be reduced by WEP as I am receiving pensions from the UK employers I worked for before moving to the USA and paying into SS for 25 years.

At a time when SS is running out of money it seems odd that there is a move to increase how much it pays out.

I happen to think that WEP is fair enough, I don’t feel hard done by. The spousal benefits are far more generous than in the UK. If you don’t pay into the system you don’t get UK SS (OAP) and when a person dies their OAP goes away and the spouse gets nothing extra.
 
My gut tells me the concept is fair, the execution probably isn't fair in all cases. Doesn't affect me, so I take no hard stand on it.

I simply recognize that it's difficult to even define the word "fair." Most people mean "equal" when they say fair. But "fair" means "getting what you deserve." How do you decide that with something as complicated as SS?
 
Well there is nuance. They did not pay because they DID pay into an alternate system. So how much government largesse is enough?

Intriguingly GPO was passed as a fairness provision.
My complaint does not hinge on whether the young wife did or did not pay into SS or some other system. I paid into SS (a lot). For most guys, when you pay into social security, you get two things - social security for yourself and an insurance policy to provide for your widow. My neighbor and I paid exactly the same into social security. His wife, a trust fund baby, never worked and so never paid into the social security system. My young wife worked as a teacher and so never paid into the social security system. Yet, my neighbor's wife currently gets a spousal benefit that is 50% of his (so he, in effect, gets 50% more social security than I do) and will get 100% of his as a survivor benefit when he dies. That's the insurance policy. By contrast, my young wife gets no spousal benefit and will get no survivor benefit due to the GPO. I had to pay extra cash (a lot) for a paid up whole life policy to cover her when I die. So my neighbor and I paid exactly the same into the social security system, but he gets substantially more out of it than I do. That is the unfairness.

If you want to have a system where only those who paid in to social security can get a benefit, then that should apply to everyone, regardless of why they didn't pay into social security. It would also be more fair to single people.

Do not confuse this with the WEP, which applies to those who worked in jobs that both paid into the social security system and and that did not. As was noted above, WEP adjusts the first bend point so that you are not treated as a lower paid employee when you were actually a high paid employee. Notably, WEP cannot completely wipe out your own social security. The GPO can entirely eliminate spousal and survivor benefits.
 
Last edited:
My complaint does not hinge on whether the young wife did or did not pay into SS or some other system. I paid into SS (a lot). For most guys, when you pay into social security, you get two things - social security for yourself and an insurance policy to provide for your widow. My neighbor and I paid exactly the same into social security. His wife, a trust fund baby, never worked and so never paid into the social security system. My young wife worked as a teacher and so never paid into the social security system. Yet, my neighbor's wife currently gets a spousal benefit that is 50% of his (so he, in effect, gets 50% more social security than I do) and will get 100% of his as a survivor benefit when he dies. That's the insurance policy. By contrast, my young wife gets no spousal benefit and will get no survivor benefit due to the GPO. I had to pay extra cash (a lot) for a paid up whole life policy to cover her when I die. So my neighbor and I paid exactly the same into the social security system, but he gets substantially more out of it than I do. That is the unfairness.

If you want to have a system where only those who paid in to social security can get a benefit, then that should apply to everyone, regardless of why they didn't pay into social security. It would also be more fair to single people.

Do not confuse this with the WEP, which applies to those who worked in jobs that both paid into the social security system and and that did not. As was noted above, WEP adjusts the first bend point so that you are not treated as a lower paid employee when you were actually a high paid employee. Notably, WEP cannot completely wipe out your own social security. The GPO can entirely eliminate spousal and survivor benefits.
Yep. Kinda like I said. The concept is probably "fair." W*rking out the details, not so fair.

Thankfully, you are taking care of the young wife through insurance. Not everyone thinks of that or has the means to do so. Good on you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am guessing the spousal SS portion was originally designed to cover households where one person stayed at home taking care of kids while the other worked. Part of the whole social contract thing I think, just as paying for other people's kids when you have none yourself or paying taxes for public schooling when you went to private school.
 
I am guessing the spousal SS portion was originally designed to cover households where one person stayed at home taking care of kids while the other worked. Part of the whole social contract thing I think, just as paying for other people's kids when you have none yourself or paying taxes for public schooling when you went to private school.
A. That paradigm has certainly changed; and
B. There is no requirement that you have or had kids to get a spousal or survivor benefit.

Schools are a public good, like roads, and fire and police departments. So I don't mind paying property taxes for the schools, even though we never had children.
 
This does affect my household.

DH is a Federal retiree (33 years) under the old (CSRS) retirement system. He also paid into SS, with more than 40 quarters. All but 2 of those 40 + quarters were at a fairly high pay rate. The current offset is substantial amount of money. From his perspective, the rules of the game were changed after he started working and began to make retirement decisions. He views the WEP implementation as essentially a bait-and-switch game with him on the losing side.

Like many affected, he worked early in his life in the private sector, then spent decades as a Federal employee, retired and then went back to the private sector.

Proposals for legislative change to WEP have come and gone many times. I can't imagine that this time will be much different but hope to be disproved. :)
 
Last edited:
I am affected by WEP but eliminating it won't make a huge difference financially for me because I always planned to not receive any social security so the amount I get is much more than zero.
However, I do know several people who's lively hood is seriously affected by WEP. Most are women who were lower wage earners. Do I think it is fair? Probably not but I could give you a list of things the government does that I don't think is fair!
There are a few things that bother me about WEP
1. when I went to work for local government in 1985 there was no explanation as to what WEP is. No one knew a darn thing about it where I worked just that we didn't pay into social security which I thought was odd at the time but I was young and social security wasn't going to be around when I was old enough to collect. :)
Many people thought that they would be able to collect their social security based on covered earnings not knowing about the deduction. Of course now it's available but at the time you would have had to contact SSA and hope that the person you talked with had the correct information-which was a crap shoot.
2. why was the government allowed to opt out of social security? The only answer I have ever come up with is politics. Straight up. And that's all I'm going to say about that!

Personally I think WEP/GPO should be repealed if no other reason than I personally believe all of those government agencies should never have been allowed to opt out to begin with. What a repeal would look like I have no idea-it would not be easy. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
 
Gumby,

GPO stands for Government Pension Offset as I uh understand it.

So I do not think I am confusing anything, but maybe I am. Who worked in a job that qualified for a government pension other than SS in your example? I think that is the detail which makes the difference.
 
Back
Top Bottom