Retired Unit Coordinator Dept. of Veteramn Affairs Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:28 AM
I am a Federal retiree who falls under the GPO and always thought it to be one of the most unfair bills. This article gives me a little more hope that it may be repealed and I will get the full amount of Social security payment that I am entitled to.
Military payback
Analyst SSA Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:44 AM
Would the elimination of WEP affect the need for veterans to make paybacks if they become entitled to SS benefits and CSRS?
Re: Military payback
Instructor DoD Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:50 AM
My answer would be "No" because the payback has nothing to do with Social Security. They payback is to cover the contributions you never made to a defined benefit plan (e.g. CSRS, FERS) to get retirement credit for those years. It would only affect your CSRS or FERS disbursment. It's wouldn't affect your SS one way or the other.
Congress, Federal Pensions and the National Debt
Retired DoD Audit Manager DoD Inspector General Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:51 AM
Eliminating the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision lies right up their with the pipe dream that one day the American taxpayer will come to appreciate the work of government employees. This ain't gonna happen, so why get your hopes up?
Married FERS Employees & WEP
Test Control Officer Sheppard AFB TX USAF Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:49 AM
After reading Mr. Smith's and Mr. Grobe's articles on WEP I'm still a bit confused.
My husband is retired Air Force; I separated from AF.
I paid the POST 56 Deposit.
My husband has been a FERS employee since Nov 1999.
I've been a FERS employee since 12 July 1988.
My spouse will file for his SSN at age 66 and will remain employed under FERS. When I reach age 66 I will file for my Social Security. I may not be under Civil Service at age 66.
Does WEP mean I won't get my FULL SSN benefit because my spouse is getting HIS FULL SSN benefit?
Does WEP mean I won't get ANY SSN benefit on my own even though I earned it because my spouse is getting his full SSN benefit?
We are under the presumption we both will get our FULL SSN BENEFIT without any reduction.
Please straighten me out on this WEB topic.
Thank you,
Roberta F. Sheehy
Sheppard AFB, TX
Re: Married FERS Employees & WEP
Ex HR Practitioner DoD Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:13 PM
Neither the GPO or the WEP affect you and your husband because you are both FERS. GPO and WEP only affect CSRS emloyees (and state and local government employees who do not pay social security earnings on their salary).
P.S. I am a retired Benefits Specialist.
WEP
Billy Shears Apple Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:08 AM
Eliminating it entirely is very unlikely. However, how about a fairer sliding scale; one that does not penalize an employee with 20 years of substantial earnings the same as it penalizes an employee with 10?
WEP
Former HR Specialist Federal Agency Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:13 PM
Given that next January I plan on retiring on a very comfortable CSRS Retirement, and I have a total of 19 Social Security credits, I don't have a problem with the WEP. To keep myself out of trouble and earn a little extra on the side, I plan on getting a part time job at a corner hardware store, or something. When I get to my 40 credits, I plan on applying for my SS benefits. If those are reduced because I paid in for only 10 years, mostly at minimum wage, I won't complain because I paid the minimum and the SS benefit fomula was developed to support those at the lower end of the earnings scale, not as a supplement for those already receiving a very good retirement. While I will apply because I want everything to which I am entitled, but I don't want to receive extra which might bankrupt the system earlier.
Re: WEP
retired fed CMS/DHHS Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:13 AM
I retired three years ago on CSRS and filed for SS payments based on 40 quarters of private sector work prior to working for the federal government. I receive a small SS check every month (with 2/3's of full amount withheld under existing law). While I could use the extra money, I also have no complaints about the current system. CSRS pensions are adequate if you have properly prepared for retirement, and I do not want to further deplete the Social Security system for those who will need it more then I do.
These bills have been proposed for 25 years and they never go anywhere. Since I am retired and only 55 I would like to work but not starting at a 37.65% tax rate. Social security is a tax to me with no benefit
gpo/windfall
retired dept of labor, oig Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:21 PM
These provisions are unreasonable and certainly not fair. Those of us who have paid our necessary quarters are entitled to our full social security benefits. At least we paid into the system. Think of all the money going out to individuals who have not contributed and may not even be legal residents. The fraud alone probably exceeds what it would cost to provide benefits that we have earned.
GPO
Retired Manager Internal Revenue Service Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:04 PM
All of my husband's contributions to Social Security were made with community property income (earned in California) as were my contributions to CSRS. Because this (and other factors), my husband will receive half of my pension should I pre-decease him. I, on the other hand, cannot get a dime from Social Security should he pre-decease me. GPO is so incredibly unfair.
Re: GPO
Elizabeth Reed Macon, Ga. Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:21 PM
Keep him happy. Pamper the man. Decrease his stress level. It's in your best interest. KEEP THAT MAN ALIVE!
Excellent Article
District Manager Social Security Administration Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:40 PM
I believe that it could be part of the solucion to the American economy. It is not only fair for the government workers but will also provide them with the much needed additional resources upon retirement. If this is approved I plan to retire sooner than expected. My retirement will allow someones to step up and eventually the government will be able to hire more individuals which also results in support to the economy. It'a about time that justice is made for those that have dedicated their life to serve the american public. Economic compensation is the last thing we can do for them.
Re: Excellent Article
Prof Small College Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:28 PM
District Manager: Spelling and English usage is not your strong point, but attempting to get something for nothing is your forte.
Pay into the system for 30 years (120 quarters) and you will receive the same benefits that those that paid for 30 years receive. There "ain't no" free lunches. Some one has to pay.
Re: Excellent Article
Instructor DoD Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:12 AM
The problem with "additional resources upon retirement" is that it reduces the benefit for those who paid their fair share to pay those who didn't. I'm not talking about the one-toothed guy by the Chattooga River who can play "Dueling Banjos" blindfolded. I'm talking about the CSRS employee who worked for 40 years with a very substantial income without paying a dime into Social Security. Just because they gamed the system by moonlighting at a convenience store doesn't mean they're entitled to the same percentage as someone who contributed for almost 50 years. Hence, WEP.
If you didn't pay into Social Security....
Instructor DoD Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:40 AM
you are not entitled to the same disbursment as someone who did.
I'm 45. That's already 108 quarters. By the time I reach 67, I'll have 196...nearly 5 times the minimum 40 quarters. Yet the person who had only 10 years of contributions would get an overly generous payment even though I've contributed for 49 years AND even though that person may have made a very substantial income for years which they didn't contribute to SS. Essentially my SS payment, as well as others who contributed like I did, would have to be reduced to compensate for those who didn't contribute and are gaming the system. That's what WEP is for.
GPO is another story. Perhaps it should be more graduated and take total contributions into account but then again it's a similar story as WEP: you have a person who expects to receive spousal benefits even though they may have made substantial income w/o contributing to SS.
Re: If you didn't pay into Social Security....
WORKER US GOVT Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:27 PM
According to the Social Security webpage substantial earnings for 2009 are $19,800.
But getting another job after retirement is not "gaming the system". Some people want to work, some have too.
You want us to work, pay full social security deductions, and then get a 60% reduction in benefits so you can have your full payments. All I want is what I paid for. If
I will not get full benefits, make it so I can opt out os SS and never be able to draw anything.
We need to pay off the debt
GOV WORKER DoD Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:57 AM
Regardless of your personal situation, if we cannot pay the interest on the national debt and have to monetize it then all these conversations are strictly academic. We have no choice but to pay what we owe as a nation, and that means a little pain now.
Social Security Tax Credit for Federal CSRS
Acountant, Retired gs 14 DOE, Albuquerque Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:12 AM
Why should i pay into a retirement system i cannot get any benefits for. I propose a tax credit for CSRS employees who have no chance to draw social security. I paid into the system for 7 years and it will go to others. With a 5% return, i am entitled to $7,123 refund.
Re: Social Security Tax Credit for Federal CSRS
manager DoD Agency Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:44 AM
This is apparently the same commentator that posted this remark: "Your "Socialist" name calling doen't work any more. Why don't you try to offer something new besides the old stale 1880 "Gilded Age" crap."
I would think you would welcome the rich federal retiree (we make more than twice as much as the average American) giving up some of his retirement income to help the poor and needy in our country--without regard to whether they have worked for it and whether they really deserve it?
You cannon celebrate the "take it from the rich and give it to the poor" philosophy of health care but not want to have the same government take your money and give it to others; unless, as seems apparent, your "charity" only extends to taking money from others and not from you?
Re: Social Security Tax Credit for Federal CSRS
WORKER US GOVT Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:35 PM
I know of no "rich" federal retirees, most of them, live on a fairly tight budget.
Also, as far as making twice as much as the average American, once again THERE ARE NO MINIMUM WAGE EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Therefore any comparison is flawed if it does not compare apples to apples. See Fay Vincents article on this web site.
Re: Social Security Tax Credit for Federal CSRS
Financial Mgmt Analyst NAVY Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:44 PM
DOE Accountant,
Paid in 7 yrs and you want a 5% return on that money? Please...I've worked in the private sector for over 10 yrs and now under the FERS plan for 9 yrs and I'll be lucky to see 10% of the money that I'll put into social security. I'm in my early 30s but how do you think our generation feels about paying into a system (Soc Sec) and getting pennies back if at all on each dollar paid in. And your 5% return, I don't know where you get that figure at. The Gov paid an avg of 4% on Soc. Sec funds over the last 9 yrs. You ought to be happy enough with the more than generous CSRS retirement that you are getting. I'll get half that percentage in my retirement formula and the TSP will have to really do well for me to retire in the next 20 yrs. You don't have to worry about the market since the pension formula is so much better. The gov match that we get in FERS doesn't work if the market performs like it has over the last 5, 10, 15 yrs - it won't be enough to retire. Your lucky!
GPO
financial mgt analyst dod Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:05 AM
Hopefully Congress will do the right thing and repeal these unfair and discriminatory laws. When the law was passed, they picked and chose their victims with the formulas and rules...not based on fairness or welfare of deserving SS recipients, but a greedy desire to 'take' the money saved and use for other purposes. The victims were/are sitting ducks...most are not even aware of how the law affects them until their retirement briefing...usually a few months or weeks before official retirement date.
Will GPO and WEP Disappear?
Ex HR Practitioner DoD Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:11 PM
I don't see much chance that WEP and GPO will disappear because this legislation has been introduced at the begining of every congress for the last 20 years.
Also there are some unintended consequences to consider if WEP and GPO are eliminated. What about CSRS employees who transferred to FERS to avoid the GPO and/or reduce the WEP? What about employees who made FERCCA decisions based on the laws in effect at the time of their decision. Every aspect of amending or eliminating WEP and GPO needs to be considered because this has the potential to be a bureacratic nightmare.
GPO and WEP
Retired Dept of the Air Force - Civilian Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:10 AM
After my civil service career ended, I went to work in the private sector and will soon be qualified to draw social security on my own benefit. I am also divorced and entitled to benefit under my ex-spouse. But, the GPO and WEP make the benefit unfairly small if any would exist at all. The military can get their social security and retirement. It is time for the civil servants to have equal and fair treatment.
GPP OFFSET
CSR Employee Social Security Adm Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:14 PM
This law is wrong. Some of the Congresspersons are receiving there FULL Social Security Benefits and also will receive a Government Pension when they retire. They passed this Law after they got there Social Security Benefits. I have worked for the Government for over 3o yrs and also worked in the private sector and have over 40 qtrs and will not be able to receive my full Social Securiyty Benefits. All of the Taxes that was taken out for Social Security Should be Refunded back to people where this offset apply to.
GPO/Windfall Offset
Secretary ATF Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:09 AM
I am a widow and I am included in both offsets. I would like to retire but it would be impossible with these offsets. This is a very discriminative legislation. The SSFairness Act of 2009 HR-235 should be passed. It effects many widow's with very small pensions.
GPO AND WEP
HOUSING PROGRAM ASSISTANT HUD Mon Feb 2, 2009 4:16 PM
I too think this is an unfair law. Let's take a look at who made the law! That's right, the Congressmen who feel that government workers don't deserve two checks but they don't put a limit on how much they can make! I have worked under both systems - I worked under Social Security for 8 years with the State of Florida. I then left the State and came to the Government in 1978 (temp - under SS) and became permanent in 1979. I became a TRANSFRERS employee 1/1/99. I am presently paying into SS but will have less than 30 years when I retire. I want and need ALL my benefits. I do not have a husband (military or non-military) to depend on and I am not a "highly paid" employee. If I was, then maybe I wouldn't mind not receiving my SS. It just seems that when Congress passes laws, they always seem to pass something in their favor and not in the general public's favor. I say repeal the GPO and WEP now!
ss / retirement
supervisor va Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:19 PM
I'm retiring with 38 years of total federal service, which includes my military service. I did not "payback" my military time. I may need to work pt in the future but due to current laws my pension would be reduced if I become eligible for SS (whether i apply for it or not)when I reach 62. My point is that even if I had paid back my military time I would be still be penalized by GPO/WEP, so it's a no win situation for me.
GPO/WEP
Secretary Treasury Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:27 AM
These provisions are grossly unfair. Especially to those of us who had periods of interrupted employment to raise our children and returned to work for the Government under CSRS. Little discussed fact is that if you were a higher wage earner on the outside and had "substantial earnings" you are entitled to keep your entire Social Security plus your entire pension w/no offset. Only the lower wage earners get punished. This is unjust and some modifications must be made.
GPO
Retired Unit Coordinator Dept. of Veteran Affairs Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:37 AM
Please do keep us informed on the GPO because this bill is causing a hardship for many of us who are entitled to more money but are being offset by this unfair bill.
Social Security Fairness Act
Teacher Public School System Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:57 AM
If we can afford to bail everyone out, wouldn't it make sense to do what is right and allow the people who have earned this money receive it?
I would like to point out something that some of your readers may have overlooked. There are many Federal employees who are nearing or have passed retirement age who can't afford to retire.
These are the lower-graded GSs that have helped keep our Government functioning. Many of them are as hardworking (if not more) as those in the ivory towers.
I consider myself fortunate that I started out as a GS-04, and was able to move up through the ranks. However, my annual pension will be about $36,000, BEFORE TAXES. I live alone. That's not much when you consider that I still have to pay for housing, food, gas and utilities. I also saw the value of my TSP account diminish during these last two years. I am currently looking for a part-time job, out of both need and desire. And, I'm one of the lucky ones.
The passage of the WEP/GPO will allow me to receive the SS benefit that I earned before, during and after my Government career. Ex-Army SP4.
Have you contacted you Congressperson? I have!
Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination
retired production manager Navy/dod Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:42 AM
Why is that Federal active and retired employees are singled out and essentially become 2nd class citizens as compared to the private sector, i.e., Hatch Act (restrictions), Social Security WEP/GPO, Premium Conversion? Public Servants meeting the SSAN eligibility requirements deserve to be fairly and equally treated in SSAN retirement supplements the same as private sector employees and retirees enjoy. Additionally, Hatch Act restrictions on Federal Employee citizens should be ruled as unconstitutional as it singles out Public Servants and restricts personal freedoms enjoyed by other private citizens.
WEP and GPO
Adjudicator INS Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:58 AM
From about 1955 to 1980 I put into the Social Security system. Based on my earnings then, I should be entitled to about $900/mo. (Some windfall, hunh!) When I turned 65, I was able to draw that money, but only if I DIDN'T retire. I was allowed to draw a federal salary AND my social security. But when I retired, my social security windfall was cut almost in half.
There had to have been a committee of politicians and bureaucrats that designed this; no one man alone could come up with anything that screwed up.
The post hoc arguments in favor of WEP and GPO don't make much sense either.
Offset & Windfall
Management Assistant Internal Revenue Service Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:18 AM
We as a nation are spending billions of dollars to help the rich companies who have used money for elabarate parties, planes & etc.
We have allowed our officials to go without paying their taxes for years.
Now we as a gov employee are required to file timely and not even entitled to an extension to pay our taxes or face possible dismissal.
What is the fairness in this.
APPEAL THIS OFFSET & WINDFALL AND HELP THE POOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE OBIDED BY THE RULES.
Don penalize us because we worked elsewhere before working for the government. Many of us were caught in the middle and this law was forced on us. We had no choice. THIS IS VERY UNFAIR.
Please don't use my name.
Why Are Few Penalized
School Administrator Dallas ISD Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:36 PM
Regardless of your feelings on repealing the GPO and WEP, how can it be fair for teachers in only 12 of the states to be penalized with these and those just like us in all the other states are not affected by these. How on earth, should living in a certain state determine whether one should be eligible for benefits or not. After all isn't this the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." Something is desperately wrong here when only a few are taking the pain while others have no penalities under the same circumstances.
GOP and WEP
Retired DOL Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:19 PM
I paid into SS about10-12 quarters so on my own I don't qualify for SS benefits. Because of GOP and WEP I don't qualify for SS spousal benefits either. SO....I think that SS should give me the money that I paid into SS. This money was deducted from my pay on the assumption that I would eventually reap a benefit from it. Since laws have been passed eliminating my benefit I believe they should be required to give me back my deductions paid to them! What do you thing?
GPO and WEP
Retired FBI Agent Self employed government contractor Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:06 PM
I appreciate the information above, but that was written in January 2009 and I read it several times, what is the latest information on the GPO and WEP. April 1, 2009 is one day away is anything new happening? If these two programs were eliminated, I would be able to retire, thats how important this issue is to alot of people.
Offset & Windfall
Management Assistant Internal Revenue Service Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:50 PM
It would not be as expensive and thought.
There was a study done a couple of years back and it showed the cost and was mentioned that it would not be that costly to the government.
Now why was it changed. It is very unfair rule to those who had worked at the private sector before coming to the government. That is the older more experienced workers who have dedicated many years of their life as a servent to the government.
Now where is the fairness to the older americans when it becomes time to leave the work force.
Those lower paid employees cannot live on the retirement dollars. Soc Sec would not be much but it would help to about $500.00 or so a month.
Now they figured mine and when I retire I would not get enough from mine and my husbands to pay my medicare b insurance.
IS THIS FAIR ------------PUT THE AMERICAN WORKERS FIRST FOR A CHANGE>
WEP/GPO
Retired IRS Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:06 AM
A little known fact about WEP is that if you accrued 40 quarters of substantial earnings applied to social security you are not affected by the offset and may collect your full benefit. A person like myself who was a stay at home mom and only earned my quarters thru menial and part-time employment before working for the Government under CSRS can only get about 40 percent of the benefit which in my case is very minimal. I think this law is totally unfair to lower wage earners and should at least be modified.
CSRS empl married to retired military
Budget Analyst DoD Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:18 PM
Looks like I won't be eligible for any of his social security benefits as a survivor.
GPO
Dept. of Veteramn Affairs
Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:28 AM
I am a Federal retiree who falls under the GPO and always thought it to be one of the most unfair bills. This article gives me a little more hope that it may be repealed and I will get the full amount of Social security payment that I am entitled to.
Military payback
SSA
Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:44 AM
Would the elimination of WEP affect the need for veterans to make paybacks if they become entitled to SS benefits and CSRS?
Re: Military payback
DoD
Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:50 AM
Congress, Federal Pensions and the National Debt
DoD Inspector General
Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:51 AM
Eliminating the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision lies right up their with the pipe dream that one day the American taxpayer will come to appreciate the work of government employees. This ain't gonna happen, so why get your hopes up?
Married FERS Employees & WEP
Sheppard AFB TX USAF
Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:49 AM
After reading Mr. Smith's and Mr. Grobe's articles on WEP I'm still a bit confused.
My husband is retired Air Force; I separated from AF.
I paid the POST 56 Deposit.
My husband has been a FERS employee since Nov 1999.
I've been a FERS employee since 12 July 1988.
My spouse will file for his SSN at age 66 and will remain employed under FERS. When I reach age 66 I will file for my Social Security. I may not be under Civil Service at age 66.
Does WEP mean I won't get my FULL SSN benefit because my spouse is getting HIS FULL SSN benefit?
Does WEP mean I won't get ANY SSN benefit on my own even though I earned it because my spouse is getting his full SSN benefit?
We are under the presumption we both will get our FULL SSN BENEFIT without any reduction.
Please straighten me out on this WEB topic.
Thank you,
Roberta F. Sheehy
Sheppard AFB, TX
Re: Married FERS Employees & WEP
DoD
Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:13 PM
P.S. I am a retired Benefits Specialist.
WEP
Apple
Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:08 AM
Eliminating it entirely is very unlikely. However, how about a fairer sliding scale; one that does not penalize an employee with 20 years of substantial earnings the same as it penalizes an employee with 10?
WEP
Federal Agency
Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:13 PM
Given that next January I plan on retiring on a very comfortable CSRS Retirement, and I have a total of 19 Social Security credits, I don't have a problem with the WEP. To keep myself out of trouble and earn a little extra on the side, I plan on getting a part time job at a corner hardware store, or something. When I get to my 40 credits, I plan on applying for my SS benefits. If those are reduced because I paid in for only 10 years, mostly at minimum wage, I won't complain because I paid the minimum and the SS benefit fomula was developed to support those at the lower end of the earnings scale, not as a supplement for those already receiving a very good retirement. While I will apply because I want everything to which I am entitled, but I don't want to receive extra which might bankrupt the system earlier.
Re: WEP
CMS/DHHS
Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:13 AM
20 years of BS
DOE, Albuquerque
Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:15 PM
These bills have been proposed for 25 years and they never go anywhere. Since I am retired and only 55 I would like to work but not starting at a 37.65% tax rate. Social security is a tax to me with no benefit
gpo/windfall
dept of labor, oig
Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:21 PM
These provisions are unreasonable and certainly not fair. Those of us who have paid our necessary quarters are entitled to our full social security benefits. At least we paid into the system. Think of all the money going out to individuals who have not contributed and may not even be legal residents. The fraud alone probably exceeds what it would cost to provide benefits that we have earned.
GPO
Internal Revenue Service
Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:04 PM
All of my husband's contributions to Social Security were made with community property income (earned in California) as were my contributions to CSRS. Because this (and other factors), my husband will receive half of my pension should I pre-decease him. I, on the other hand, cannot get a dime from Social Security should he pre-decease me. GPO is so incredibly unfair.
Re: GPO
Macon, Ga.
Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:21 PM
Excellent Article
Social Security Administration
Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:40 PM
I believe that it could be part of the solucion to the American economy. It is not only fair for the government workers but will also provide them with the much needed additional resources upon retirement. If this is approved I plan to retire sooner than expected. My retirement will allow someones to step up and eventually the government will be able to hire more individuals which also results in support to the economy. It'a about time that justice is made for those that have dedicated their life to serve the american public. Economic compensation is the last thing we can do for them.
Re: Excellent Article
Small College
Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:28 PM
Pay into the system for 30 years (120 quarters) and you will receive the same benefits that those that paid for 30 years receive. There "ain't no" free lunches. Some one has to pay.
Re: Excellent Article
DoD
Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:12 AM
If you didn't pay into Social Security....
DoD
Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:40 AM
you are not entitled to the same disbursment as someone who did.
I'm 45. That's already 108 quarters. By the time I reach 67, I'll have 196...nearly 5 times the minimum 40 quarters. Yet the person who had only 10 years of contributions would get an overly generous payment even though I've contributed for 49 years AND even though that person may have made a very substantial income for years which they didn't contribute to SS. Essentially my SS payment, as well as others who contributed like I did, would have to be reduced to compensate for those who didn't contribute and are gaming the system. That's what WEP is for.
GPO is another story. Perhaps it should be more graduated and take total contributions into account but then again it's a similar story as WEP: you have a person who expects to receive spousal benefits even though they may have made substantial income w/o contributing to SS.
Re: If you didn't pay into Social Security....
US GOVT
Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:27 PM
But getting another job after retirement is not "gaming the system". Some people want to work, some have too.
You want us to work, pay full social security deductions, and then get a 60% reduction in benefits so you can have your full payments. All I want is what I paid for. If
I will not get full benefits, make it so I can opt out os SS and never be able to draw anything.
We need to pay off the debt
DoD
Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:57 AM
Regardless of your personal situation, if we cannot pay the interest on the national debt and have to monetize it then all these conversations are strictly academic. We have no choice but to pay what we owe as a nation, and that means a little pain now.
Social Security Tax Credit for Federal CSRS
DOE, Albuquerque
Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:12 AM
Why should i pay into a retirement system i cannot get any benefits for. I propose a tax credit for CSRS employees who have no chance to draw social security. I paid into the system for 7 years and it will go to others. With a 5% return, i am entitled to $7,123 refund.
Re: Social Security Tax Credit for Federal CSRS
DoD Agency
Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:44 AM
I would think you would welcome the rich federal retiree (we make more than twice as much as the average American) giving up some of his retirement income to help the poor and needy in our country--without regard to whether they have worked for it and whether they really deserve it?
You cannon celebrate the "take it from the rich and give it to the poor" philosophy of health care but not want to have the same government take your money and give it to others; unless, as seems apparent, your "charity" only extends to taking money from others and not from you?
Re: Social Security Tax Credit for Federal CSRS
US GOVT
Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:35 PM
Also, as far as making twice as much as the average American, once again THERE ARE NO MINIMUM WAGE EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Therefore any comparison is flawed if it does not compare apples to apples. See Fay Vincents article on this web site.
Re: Social Security Tax Credit for Federal CSRS
NAVY
Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:44 PM
Paid in 7 yrs and you want a 5% return on that money? Please...I've worked in the private sector for over 10 yrs and now under the FERS plan for 9 yrs and I'll be lucky to see 10% of the money that I'll put into social security. I'm in my early 30s but how do you think our generation feels about paying into a system (Soc Sec) and getting pennies back if at all on each dollar paid in. And your 5% return, I don't know where you get that figure at. The Gov paid an avg of 4% on Soc. Sec funds over the last 9 yrs. You ought to be happy enough with the more than generous CSRS retirement that you are getting. I'll get half that percentage in my retirement formula and the TSP will have to really do well for me to retire in the next 20 yrs. You don't have to worry about the market since the pension formula is so much better. The gov match that we get in FERS doesn't work if the market performs like it has over the last 5, 10, 15 yrs - it won't be enough to retire. Your lucky!
GPO
dod
Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:05 AM
Hopefully Congress will do the right thing and repeal these unfair and discriminatory laws. When the law was passed, they picked and chose their victims with the formulas and rules...not based on fairness or welfare of deserving SS recipients, but a greedy desire to 'take' the money saved and use for other purposes. The victims were/are sitting ducks...most are not even aware of how the law affects them until their retirement briefing...usually a few months or weeks before official retirement date.
Will GPO and WEP Disappear?
DoD
Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:11 PM
I don't see much chance that WEP and GPO will disappear because this legislation has been introduced at the begining of every congress for the last 20 years.
Also there are some unintended consequences to consider if WEP and GPO are eliminated. What about CSRS employees who transferred to FERS to avoid the GPO and/or reduce the WEP? What about employees who made FERCCA decisions based on the laws in effect at the time of their decision. Every aspect of amending or eliminating WEP and GPO needs to be considered because this has the potential to be a bureacratic nightmare.
GPO and WEP
Dept of the Air Force - Civilian
Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:10 AM
After my civil service career ended, I went to work in the private sector and will soon be qualified to draw social security on my own benefit. I am also divorced and entitled to benefit under my ex-spouse. But, the GPO and WEP make the benefit unfairly small if any would exist at all. The military can get their social security and retirement. It is time for the civil servants to have equal and fair treatment.
GPP OFFSET
Social Security Adm
Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:14 PM
This law is wrong. Some of the Congresspersons are receiving there FULL Social Security Benefits and also will receive a Government Pension when they retire. They passed this Law after they got there Social Security Benefits. I have worked for the Government for over 3o yrs and also worked in the private sector and have over 40 qtrs and will not be able to receive my full Social Securiyty Benefits. All of the Taxes that was taken out for Social Security Should be Refunded back to people where this offset apply to.
GPO/Windfall Offset
ATF
Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:09 AM
I am a widow and I am included in both offsets. I would like to retire but it would be impossible with these offsets. This is a very discriminative legislation. The SSFairness Act of 2009 HR-235 should be passed. It effects many widow's with very small pensions.
GPO AND WEP
HUD
Mon Feb 2, 2009 4:16 PM
I too think this is an unfair law. Let's take a look at who made the law! That's right, the Congressmen who feel that government workers don't deserve two checks but they don't put a limit on how much they can make! I have worked under both systems - I worked under Social Security for 8 years with the State of Florida. I then left the State and came to the Government in 1978 (temp - under SS) and became permanent in 1979. I became a TRANSFRERS employee 1/1/99. I am presently paying into SS but will have less than 30 years when I retire. I want and need ALL my benefits. I do not have a husband (military or non-military) to depend on and I am not a "highly paid" employee. If I was, then maybe I wouldn't mind not receiving my SS. It just seems that when Congress passes laws, they always seem to pass something in their favor and not in the general public's favor. I say repeal the GPO and WEP now!
ss / retirement
va
Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:19 PM
I'm retiring with 38 years of total federal service, which includes my military service. I did not "payback" my military time. I may need to work pt in the future but due to current laws my pension would be reduced if I become eligible for SS (whether i apply for it or not)when I reach 62. My point is that even if I had paid back my military time I would be still be penalized by GPO/WEP, so it's a no win situation for me.
GPO/WEP
Treasury
Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:27 AM
These provisions are grossly unfair. Especially to those of us who had periods of interrupted employment to raise our children and returned to work for the Government under CSRS. Little discussed fact is that if you were a higher wage earner on the outside and had "substantial earnings" you are entitled to keep your entire Social Security plus your entire pension w/no offset. Only the lower wage earners get punished. This is unjust and some modifications must be made.
GPO
Dept. of Veteran Affairs
Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:37 AM
Please do keep us informed on the GPO because this bill is causing a hardship for many of us who are entitled to more money but are being offset by this unfair bill.
Social Security Fairness Act
Public School System
Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:57 AM
If we can afford to bail everyone out, wouldn't it make sense to do what is right and allow the people who have earned this money receive it?
Big CSRS Pensions??
DFAS
Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:16 PM
I would like to point out something that some of your readers may have overlooked. There are many Federal employees who are nearing or have passed retirement age who can't afford to retire.
These are the lower-graded GSs that have helped keep our Government functioning. Many of them are as hardworking (if not more) as those in the ivory towers.
I consider myself fortunate that I started out as a GS-04, and was able to move up through the ranks. However, my annual pension will be about $36,000, BEFORE TAXES. I live alone. That's not much when you consider that I still have to pay for housing, food, gas and utilities. I also saw the value of my TSP account diminish during these last two years. I am currently looking for a part-time job, out of both need and desire. And, I'm one of the lucky ones.
The passage of the WEP/GPO will allow me to receive the SS benefit that I earned before, during and after my Government career. Ex-Army SP4.
Have you contacted you Congressperson? I have!
Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination
Navy/dod
Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:42 AM
Why is that Federal active and retired employees are singled out and essentially become 2nd class citizens as compared to the private sector, i.e., Hatch Act (restrictions), Social Security WEP/GPO, Premium Conversion? Public Servants meeting the SSAN eligibility requirements deserve to be fairly and equally treated in SSAN retirement supplements the same as private sector employees and retirees enjoy. Additionally, Hatch Act restrictions on Federal Employee citizens should be ruled as unconstitutional as it singles out Public Servants and restricts personal freedoms enjoyed by other private citizens.
WEP and GPO
INS
Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:58 AM
From about 1955 to 1980 I put into the Social Security system. Based on my earnings then, I should be entitled to about $900/mo. (Some windfall, hunh!) When I turned 65, I was able to draw that money, but only if I DIDN'T retire. I was allowed to draw a federal salary AND my social security. But when I retired, my social security windfall was cut almost in half.
There had to have been a committee of politicians and bureaucrats that designed this; no one man alone could come up with anything that screwed up.
The post hoc arguments in favor of WEP and GPO don't make much sense either.
Offset & Windfall
Internal Revenue Service
Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:18 AM
We as a nation are spending billions of dollars to help the rich companies who have used money for elabarate parties, planes & etc.
We have allowed our officials to go without paying their taxes for years.
Now we as a gov employee are required to file timely and not even entitled to an extension to pay our taxes or face possible dismissal.
What is the fairness in this.
APPEAL THIS OFFSET & WINDFALL AND HELP THE POOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE OBIDED BY THE RULES.
Don penalize us because we worked elsewhere before working for the government. Many of us were caught in the middle and this law was forced on us. We had no choice. THIS IS VERY UNFAIR.
Please don't use my name.
Why Are Few Penalized
Dallas ISD
Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:36 PM
Regardless of your feelings on repealing the GPO and WEP, how can it be fair for teachers in only 12 of the states to be penalized with these and those just like us in all the other states are not affected by these. How on earth, should living in a certain state determine whether one should be eligible for benefits or not. After all isn't this the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." Something is desperately wrong here when only a few are taking the pain while others have no penalities under the same circumstances.
GOP and WEP
DOL
Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:19 PM
I paid into SS about10-12 quarters so on my own I don't qualify for SS benefits. Because of GOP and WEP I don't qualify for SS spousal benefits either. SO....I think that SS should give me the money that I paid into SS. This money was deducted from my pay on the assumption that I would eventually reap a benefit from it. Since laws have been passed eliminating my benefit I believe they should be required to give me back my deductions paid to them! What do you thing?
GPO and WEP
Self employed government contractor
Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:06 PM
I appreciate the information above, but that was written in January 2009 and I read it several times, what is the latest information on the GPO and WEP. April 1, 2009 is one day away is anything new happening? If these two programs were eliminated, I would be able to retire, thats how important this issue is to alot of people.
Offset & Windfall
Internal Revenue Service
Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:50 PM
It would not be as expensive and thought.
There was a study done a couple of years back and it showed the cost and was mentioned that it would not be that costly to the government.
Now why was it changed. It is very unfair rule to those who had worked at the private sector before coming to the government. That is the older more experienced workers who have dedicated many years of their life as a servent to the government.
Now where is the fairness to the older americans when it becomes time to leave the work force.
Those lower paid employees cannot live on the retirement dollars. Soc Sec would not be much but it would help to about $500.00 or so a month.
Now they figured mine and when I retire I would not get enough from mine and my husbands to pay my medicare b insurance.
IS THIS FAIR ------------PUT THE AMERICAN WORKERS FIRST FOR A CHANGE>
WEP/GPO
IRS
Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:06 AM
A little known fact about WEP is that if you accrued 40 quarters of substantial earnings applied to social security you are not affected by the offset and may collect your full benefit. A person like myself who was a stay at home mom and only earned my quarters thru menial and part-time employment before working for the Government under CSRS can only get about 40 percent of the benefit which in my case is very minimal. I think this law is totally unfair to lower wage earners and should at least be modified.
CSRS empl married to retired military
DoD
Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:18 PM
Looks like I won't be eligible for any of his social security benefits as a survivor.