http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_HR_82.html?rev=29685 <p>H.R. 82 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. Related to S. 206.</p> <h2 id="toc0"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to repeal: (1) government pension offset requirements applicable to husband's and wife's insurance benefits, widow's and widower's insurance benefits, and mother's and father's insurance benefits with respect to OASDI payments; and (2) windfall elimination requirements with respect to computation of an individual's primary insurance amount.</p> <h2 id="toc1"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Introduced by Rep. Howard L. Berman (CA) and referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security. Has 325 sponsors and co-sponsors as of 9/06/07, nearly 3/4 of the House of Representatives.</p> <p>A Senate subcommittee hearing on S. 206 was scheduled for 11/06/07. (Look up S. 206 on washingtonwatch.com for more information.)</p> <h2 id="toc2"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>Current GPO and WEP rules take away Social Security rights that people earned because someone in their family served in public service jobs outside of the system. For example, a wife who never worked would get 50% of her husband's retirement benefits. However, if she worked as a librarian in many states, she would get none of these benefits. In another case, a coal miner turned fire fighter might be denied most of his own Social Security retirement benefits earned in the mines, because his later employer chose not to participate in Social Security.</p> <p>Overall, it discourages people from taking a career in public service, or tracks them between covered and non-covered employers. Former teachers in one school district cannot afford to serve in another district, making it harder to fill needed positions everywhere.</p> <h2 id="toc3"> Points Against </h2> <p>Social Security benefits are intended to replace only a percentage of a worker's pre-retirement earnings. The way Social Security benefit amounts are figured, lower-paid workers get a higher return than highly paid workers. For example, lower-paid workers could get a Social Security benefit that equals about 55 percent of their pre-retirement earnings. The average replacement rate for highly paid workers is about 25 percent.</p> <p>Before 1983, people who worked mainly in a job not covered by Social Security had their Social Security benefits calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers. The effect of this was that their record looked like that of a person who had worked most of their life at lower paying jobs. This gave them an advantage because they received a Social Security benefit representing a higher percentage of their earnings than was intended, plus a pension from a job where they did not pay Social Security taxes. For that reason Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision to remove that advantage.</p> <p>For those who have worked at both Social Security covered jobs and non-covered jobs there is a provision to reduce the offset. For every year of substantial Social Security covered earnings in excess of twenty years the offset is reduced. It is entirely possible for an individual to have enough Social Security earnings to completely eliminate the offset. The table for substantial earnings can be found at:</p> <p>www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html#exceptions</p> <p>A detailed explanation and chart showing the maximum amount of the offset is at:</p> <p>www.ssa.gov/retire2/wep-chart.htm</p> <p>This is a fair and equitable way to reduce the unfair advantage that some individuals gained prior to the enactment of the Windfall Elimination Provision, while still providing some measure of coverage under Social Security.</p> 29685@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:46:06 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_HR_82.html?rev=29673 <p>H.R. 82 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. Related to S. 206.</p> <h2 id="toc4"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to repeal: (1) government pension offset requirements applicable to husband's and wife's insurance benefits, widow's and widower's insurance benefits, and mother's and father's insurance benefits with respect to OASDI payments; and (2) windfall elimination requirements with respect to computation of an individual's primary insurance amount.</p> <h2 id="toc5"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Introduced by Rep. Howard L. Berman (CA) and referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security. Has 325 sponsors and co-sponsors as of 9/06/07, nearly 3/4 of the House of Representatives.</p> <p>A Senate subcommittee hearing on S. 206 was scheduled for 11/06/07. (Look up S. 206 on washingtonwatch.com for more information.)</p> <h2 id="toc6"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>Current GPO and WEP rules take away Social Security rights that people earned because someone in their family served in public service jobs outside of the system. For example, a wife who never worked would get 50% of her husband's retirement benefits. However, if she worked as a librarian in many states, she would get none of these benefits. In another case, a coal miner turned fire fighter might be denied most of his own Social Security retirement benefits earned in the mines, because his later employer chose not to participate in Social Security.</p> <p>Overall, it discourages people from taking a career in public service, or tracks them between covered and non-covered employers. Former teachers in one school district cannot afford to serve in another district, making it harder to fill needed positions everywhere.</p> <h2 id="toc7"> Points Against </h2> <p>Social Security benefits are intended to replace only a percentage of a worker&acirc;€™s pre-retirement earnings. The way Social Security benefit amounts are figured, lower-paid workers get a higher return than highly paid workers. For example, lower-paid workers could get a Social Security benefit that equals about 55 percent of their pre-retirement earnings. The average replacement rate for highly paid workers is about 25 percent.</p> <p>Before 1983, people who worked mainly in a job not covered by Social Security had their Social Security benefits calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers. The effect of this was that their record looked like that of a person who had worked most of their life at lower paying jobs. This gave them an advantage because they received a Social Security benefit representing a higher percentage of their earnings than was intended, plus a pension from a job where they did not pay Social Security taxes. For that reason Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision to remove that advantage.</p> <p>For those who have worked at both Social Security covered jobs and non-covered jobs there is a provision to reduce the offset. For every year of substantial Social Security covered earnings in excess of twenty years the offset is reduced. It is entirely possible for an individual to have enough Social Security earnings to completely eliminate the offset. The table for substantial earnings can be found at:</p> <p>www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html#exceptions</p> <p>A detailed explanation and chart showing the maximum amount of the offset is at:</p> <p>www.ssa.gov/retire2/wep-chart.htm</p> <p>This is a fair and equitable way to reduce the unfair advantage that some individuals gained prior to the enactment of the Windfall Elimination Provision, while still providing some measure of coverage under Social Security.</p> 29673@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:56:04 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_HR_82.html?rev=13247 <p>H.R. 82 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. Related to S. 206.</p> <h2 id="toc8"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to repeal: (1) government pension offset requirements applicable to husband's and wife's insurance benefits, widow's and widower's insurance benefits, and mother's and father's insurance benefits with respect to OASDI payments; and (2) windfall elimination requirements with respect to computation of an individual's primary insurance amount.</p> <h2 id="toc9"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Introduced by Rep. Howard L. Berman (CA) and referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security. Has 325 sponsors and co-sponsors as of 9/06/07, nearly 3/4 of the House of Representatives.</p> <p>A Senate subcommittee hearing on S. 206 was scheduled for 11/06/07. (Look up S. 206 on washingtonwatch.com for more information.)</p> <h2 id="toc10"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>Current GPO and WEP rules take away Social Security rights that people earned because someone in their family served in public service jobs outside of the system. For example, a wife who never worked would get 50% of her husband's retirement benefits. However, if she worked as a librarian in many states, she would get none of these benefits. In another case, a coal miner turned fire fighter might be denied most of his own Social Security retirement benefits earned in the mines, because his later employer chose not to participate in Social Security.</p> <p>Overall, it discourages people from taking a career in public service, or tracks them between covered and non-covered employers. Former teachers in one school district cannot afford to serve in another district, making it harder to fill needed positions everywhere.</p> <h2 id="toc11"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 13247@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:08:40 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_HR_82.html?rev=9429 <p>H.R. 82 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. Related to S. 206.</p> <h2 id="toc12"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to repeal: (1) government pension offset requirements applicable to husband's and wife's insurance benefits, widow's and widower's insurance benefits, and mother's and father's insurance benefits with respect to OASDI payments; and (2) windfall elimination requirements with respect to computation of an individual's primary insurance amount.</p> <h2 id="toc13"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Introduced by Rep. Howard L. Berman (CA) and referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security. Has 325 sponsors and co-sponsors as of 9/06/07, nearly 3/4 of the House of Representatives.</p> <h2 id="toc14"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>Current GPO and WEP rules take away Social Security rights that people earned because someone in their family served in public service jobs outside of the system. For example, a wife who never worked would get 50% of her husband's retirement benefits. However, if she worked as a librarian in many states, she would get none of these benefits. In another case, a coal miner turned fire fighter might be denied most of his own Social Security retirement benefits earned in the mines, because his later employer chose not to participate in Social Security.</p> <p>Overall, it discourages people from taking a career in public service, or tracks them between covered and non-covered employers. Former teachers in one school district cannot afford to serve in another district, making it harder to fill needed positions everywhere.</p> <h2 id="toc15"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 9429@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:24:28 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_HR_82.html?rev=240 <p>H.R. 82 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.</p> <h2 id="toc16"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to repeal: (1) government pension offset requirements applicable to husband's and wife's insurance benefits, widow's and widower's insurance benefits, and mother's and father's insurance benefits with respect to OASDI payments; and (2) windfall elimination requirements with respect to computation of an individual's primary insurance amount.</p> <h2 id="toc17"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc18"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc19"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 240@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:52:49 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_HR_82.html?rev=241 <p>H.R. 82 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. Related to S. 206.</p> <h2 id="toc20"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to repeal: (1) government pension offset requirements applicable to husband's and wife's insurance benefits, widow's and widower's insurance benefits, and mother's and father's insurance benefits with respect to OASDI payments; and (2) windfall elimination requirements with respect to computation of an individual's primary insurance amount.</p> <h2 id="toc21"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Introduced by Rep. Howard L. Berman (CA) and referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security. Has 277 sponsors and co-sponsors as of 4/16/07, a majority of the House of Representatives.</p> <h2 id="toc22"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>Current GPO and WEP rules take away Social Security rights that people earned because someone in their family served in public service jobs outside of the system. For example, a wife who never worked would get 50% of her husband's retirement benefits. However, if she worked as a librarian in many states, she would get none of these benefits. In another case, a coal miner turned fire fighter might be denied most of his own Social Security retirement benefits earned in the mines, because his later employer chose not to participate in Social Security.</p> <p>Overall, it discourages people from taking a career in public service, or tracks them between covered and non-covered employers. Former teachers in one school district cannot afford to serve in another district, making it harder to fill needed positions everywhere.</p> <h2 id="toc23"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 241@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:52:49 EDT