Getting rid of WEP and GPO?

The news articles on this are pretty annoying to me. WEP is what I thought it is, a method to equalize Social Security benefits with those who use a different government program. This document has a nice summary at page 8 https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/BPC_WEP-GPO_issue-brief.pdf

"Without adjusting Social Security benefits for the 3% of beneficiaries who spent large portions of their careers in non-covered employment, those retirees would always receive a higher replacement rate on their covered earnings than equal earners amongthe 97% of those who worked entirely in covered employment.
Because of these increased outlays, repealing the WEP without replacing it would cost $88 billion over the first 10 years alone.7 This would speed up depletion of Social Security’s primary trust fund, resulting in a large, across- the-board benefit cut for all beneficiaries unless Congress acts."

Maybe it needs a refinement, but surely not a wholesale deletion.
 
My question for those who oppose it would be to at least consider this: if they told you that because you were going to get a pension from a private megacorp you worked for, so then they would reduce your social security in part or in total because of that pension, would you like it? I doubt it. If a person worked long enough to earn it, they should get it. As far as it adding $88 billion to the debt over 10 years, that is relatively nothing. Supposedly it would move up the "depletion" of ss by 6 months. Not happening. There are many ways to "fix" social security (increasing retirement age, higher soc sec withholdings, taxation of corporations for revenue, etc.) and the results of cutting ss benefits would be a political disaster for any administration so it simply won't be allowed to happen. My opinion. Not trying to start a back and forth, just another opinion to consider.
 
zl55lz said:
My question for those who oppose it would be to at least consider this: if they told you that because you were going to get a pension from a private megacorp you worked for, so then they would reduce your social security in part or in total because of that pension, would you like it? I doubt it. If a person worked long enough to earn it, they should get it. As far as it adding $88 billion to the debt over 10 years, that is relatively nothing. Supposedly it would move up the "depletion" of ss by 6 months. Not happening. There are many ways to "fix" social security (increasing retirement age, higher soc sec withholdings, taxation of corporations for revenue, etc.) and the results of cutting ss benefits would be a political disaster for any administration so it simply won't be allowed to happen. My opinion. Not trying to start a back and forth, just another opinion to consider.
Click to expand...
The difference is that when you work in a private megacorp, you pay into SS. Not even a close comparison.
 
RetiredHappy said:
The difference is that when you work in a private megacorp, you pay into SS. Not even a close comparison.
Click to expand...
It actually is a comparison: There are people who worked 20 years paying into social security before their gov't career who had their entire or much of their soc security benefit wiped out and/or from their spouse too. They paid in just like everybody else. Doesn't get any more comparison than that. Not so nice for those on that end of the equation.
 
Last edited:
zl55lz said:
It actually is a comparison: There are people who worked 20 years paying into social security before their gov't career who had their entire or much of their soc security benefit wiped out and/or from their spouse too. They paid in just like everybody else. Doesn't get any more comparison than that. Not so nice for those on that end of the equation.
Click to expand...
It is computed based on 2/3rds, not a total wipe out unless the pension is very large. Since SS calculation is based on bend points, having the reduction is appropriate.
 
RetiredHappy said:
It is computed based on 2/3rds, not a total wipe out unless the pension is very large. Since SS calculation is based on bend points, having the reduction is appropriate.
Click to expand...
Interesting difference of opinions on this topic. I suspect there are some who don't get a "very large" gov't pension who lost a good chunk of soc sec, maybe even all of it. However, I will even maybe concede the discussion to anyone who is willing to give up their social security or a large part of it and just keep their private pension based on a new "Private Pension Offset" regulation. Not a real thing of course, but it might give someone pause for thought.
 
zl55lz said:
Interesting difference of opinions on this topic. I suspect there are some who don't get a "very large" gov't pension who lost a good chunk of soc sec, maybe even all of it. However, I will even maybe concede the discussion to anyone who is willing to give up their social security or a large part of it and just keep their private pension based on a new "Private Pension Offset" regulation. Not a real thing of course, but it might give someone pause for thought.
Click to expand...
If I don't need to contribute to SS while getting private pension, I would think it's fair. The issue is that while they built on their government pension, they were exempt from paying into SS.
 
dukebound85 said:
Hope it gets repealed.

I have over 40 credits in SS. I have earned my SS. My benefits should not be reduced because I work for a non SS job where I took a payout/don't get 401k matches/ don't get bonuses that can't keep up with those in the private sector
Click to expand...
I would swap my SS for your pension. :)
 
PERSonalTime said:
I thought that 60 votes were enough to prevent a filibuster in the Senate?
Click to expand...
The senate majority and minority leaders will find out if they actually will get 60 votes, if not, then filibuster will prevent getting onto the floor for a vote. Basically, if they don't get 60 votes, they won't get onto the floor for a vote. If they try without 60 votes, filibuster will kill it. Co-sponsoring a bill doesn't always translate to voting for the bill.
 
Last edited:
zl55lz said:
My question for those who oppose it would be to at least consider this: if they told you that because you were going to get a pension from a private megacorp you worked for, so then they would reduce your social security in part or in total because of that pension, would you like it? I doubt it. If a person worked long enough to earn it, they should get it. As far as it adding $88 billion to the debt over 10 years, that is relatively nothing. Supposedly it would move up the "depletion" of ss by 6 months. Not happening. There are many ways to "fix" social security (increasing retirement age, higher soc sec withholdings, taxation of corporations for revenue, etc.) and the results of cutting ss benefits would be a political disaster for any administration so it simply won't be allowed to happen. My opinion. Not trying to start a back and forth, just another opinion to consider.
Click to expand...
The funny part is thinking that SS is "fair" and others are getting what they "earned" or that SS is "fair" for them. SS is not fair. By design. Do you think it is "fair" that someone could pay the 35 years wage cap and also pay FICA on another ~$500K in adjusted wages over another 11 years for nothing ? I have done that. If you make SS "fair" the whole system implodes or grandma starves, because the majority of people on SS didn't fully pay for their benefits. WEP and GPO are less "unfair" than fully participating in SS for a whole long career. That's the reason that offering an exempt pension is a perk - you get to participate in a relatively fair system while the rest of us shoulder the burden of subsidizing the more unfortunate. The irony is, if WEP and GPO are eliminated, exempt pensioners will not only get the benefit of being exempt for a career, but also be among the "unfortunates" subsidized by the rest of us long career FICA paying smucks.
 
Last edited:
I am trying to estimate what the effect will be on DH's SS check, IF the legislation passes the Senate as currently written, and is then signed by Biden. DH retired in 2008 from a federal job. He also turned 62 in 2008 and filed for SS immediately. He was subject to WEP. I would think that going forward, his check would be adjusted upward by the amount of the original WEP reduction, grossed up by the COLAS in the ensuing years between 2008 and 2024. Does my assumption seem logical?

Also the legislation as written becomes effective for SS recipients after 2023, so would that mean that there would also be a one time lump sum payment for the year 2024?
 
Golden sunsets said:
I am trying to estimate what the effect will be on DH's SS check, IF the legislation passes the Senate as currently written, and is then signed by Biden. DH retired in 2008 from a federal job. He also turned 62 in 2008 and filed for SS immediately. He was subject to WEP. I would think that going forward, his check would be adjusted upward by the amount of the original WEP reduction, grossed up by the COLAS in the ensuing years between 2008 and 2024. Does my assumption seem logical?

Also the legislation as written becomes effective for SS recipients after 2023, so would that mean that there would also be a one time lump sum payment for the year 2024?
Click to expand...
I don't think I would worry about calculating anything at this point. I think chances are slim and this is an attempt to get opposing party members "on record" to be used in the next election cycle.

Not meaning to get political, it's just what I think is going on, not a real reform. Delete if seen as an inappropriate post.

Flieger
 
Why should my SS be diminished because my spouse moved our family to another state that didn't collect SS. I was not told of this at the time of employment and as a result my SS is permanently reduced. If I had stayed at home, watched TV and NOT taught school in Louisiana, my SS would be higher. FAIR:confused: I am 78, so nothing they do now will likely affect me. I would just like them to acknowledge that they have screwed one of the lowest paid, hard working group.
 
Flieger said:
I don't think I would worry about calculating anything at this point. I think chances are slim and this is an attempt to get opposing party members "on record" to be used in the next election cycle.

Not meaning to get political, it's just what I think is going on, not a real reform. Delete if seen as an inappropriate post.

Flieger
Click to expand...
I have read they have 62 votes in the Senate and there’s bipartisan support. The republicans also want this voted on. They have to vote by the 20th. I have calculated what it means for me and it’s significant.
 
Teacher Terry said:
I have read they have 62 votes in the Senate and there’s bipartisan support. The republicans also want this voted on. They have to vote by the 20th. I have calculated what it means for me and it’s significant.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it works out for you. And hopefully they also come up with a "cure" for those counting on SS alone without a public pension.

1734101524998.png


Flieger
 
SnowballCamper said:
The news articles on this are pretty annoying to me. WEP is what I thought it is, a method to equalize Social Security benefits with those who use a different government program. This document has a nice summary at page 8 https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/BPC_WEP-GPO_issue-brief.pdf

"Without adjusting Social Security benefits for the 3% of beneficiaries who spent large portions of their careers in non-covered employment, those retirees would always receive a higher replacement rate on their covered earnings than equal earners amongthe 97% of those who worked entirely in covered employment.
Because of these increased outlays, repealing the WEP without replacing it would cost $88 billion over the first 10 years alone.7 This would speed up depletion of Social Security’s primary trust fund, resulting in a large, across- the-board benefit cut for all beneficiaries unless Congress acts."

Maybe it needs a refinement, but surely not a wholesale deletion.
Click to expand...
You’re right, but trying to convince people who did not pay SS on every dollar of their earnings (up to the limit) that they don’t have the right to get the same amount of money as those who did is a tough task. Even though they had a qualified pension and got to keep the money not paid into SS. They either don’t now or don’t want to acknowledge the bend points that control the relative amount paid to lower and higher income earners.

IMO, The best solution is to eliminate the exemptions for SS and let the problem die a long slow death over the next 30 years.
 
Last edited:
I am not up to date on anything that might have happened about exemptions....

But it was originally there because of state rights.... the fed gvmt could not tell state gvmts what to do with their employees... I still think that is in place... I also think there was some court case on this but could be very wrong..
 
Teacher Terry said:
I have read they have 62 votes in the Senate and there’s bipartisan support. The republicans also want this voted on. They have to vote by the 20th. I have calculated what it means for me and it’s significant.
Click to expand...
Terry; Were your calculations for WEP or GPO and if for WEP, did you do your math the way I did in my question above( Original WEP deduction scaled up by the COLA's since the original calculation)?
 
Texas Proud said:
I am not up to date on anything that might have happened about exemptions....

But it was originally there because of state rights.... the fed gvmt could not tell state gvmts what to do with their employees... I still think that is in place... I also think there was some court case on this but could be very wrong..
Click to expand...
Don’t state employees also pay into Medicare? I don’t see the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gumby
  • Sticky
Some important "trigger" income levels for 2025
jim584672
J
R
Walt Ehmer, Waffle House President And CEO, Dead At 58
2
Backpacker
Backpacker
J
Allocation Advice Needed
SnowballCamper
SnowballCamper
S
Anyone Here Affected by the Altice-Nexstar Dispute?
rembrandt
R
martyp
Social Security and ID.me
LadyIJ
L

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom