What People Think
 |
 |
50% For, 50% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 484, The Social Security Fairness Act of 2009
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
(Latest | Earliest)
To look at a past version, click on its date. To compare any two versions, select their radio buttons and click on "Compare Selected Versions." To compare a past version with the current version, click on (cur). To compare a version with the preceding version, click on (last).
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
gonatly
(logged in user) March 19, 2009, 9:24pm (report abuse)The "talking heads" are suggesting Obama will try to put all the action into one omnibus budget bill during this first year of his administration. Maybe it's time for us to push for finally bringing measure to a vote?
Norm
(logged in user) March 28, 2009, 1:54am (report abuse)I just finished reading public comments on the House version of this bill, and it's clear that very few people understand it. The people who favor the bill don't understand that there was a rationale for reducing SS payments to certain government retirees. The problem is that the reasoning was FAULTY. Another problem with the current system is that retirees living at the poverty level are having their SS benefits reduced. They deserve, and need, the full measure of earned SS benefits. (Need was an historic consideration in the SS system.) Conversely, the people against the bill think government retirees are demanding SS benefits when they paid nothing into the system. Not just wrong, but grossly wrong. What this tells us is that the public needs to be educated -- in terms they can understand. And perhaps legislators do as well. The old system IS unfair. It was a clumsy attempt to correct a slight disparity that was better left alone.
Brenda Beaton
March 31, 2009, 6:30pm (report abuse)I worked under the Social Security system for 18 years after I finished my career with the federal government. But I am being penalized and cannot get all that is coming to me under Social Security because of the way the law is written now. That is grossly unfair.
Lynn
April 1, 2009, 8:17pm (report abuse)After my federal government job, I took partime work to add ss to my annuity, only to find out that two thirds of it was taken away by the windfall act. I really needed that money to meet basic needs. If I had worked in private industry, I would have received my full ss benefit. It is totally unfair. I will probably work forever now!!
Josep
April 4, 2009, 3:32pm (report abuse)Congress bails out large banks, hedge funds and insurance companies with tax dollars to the tune of $1,500,000,000,000 and then refuses to repeal the immoral and unjust WEP and GPO. The cost of this repeal would amount to some $11 billion dollars. They hand out one and half trillion to parasites in the banking industry and investment institutions but can't find enough cash to correct this gross injustice. The American government has become a tool of the super rich.
JR
(logged in user) April 5, 2009, 12:59pm (report abuse)Hyperbole and rhetoric. The WEP is a valid adjustment for those who chose to work for a non-covered pension.
Paul HW
April 6, 2009, 10:03am (report abuse)I worked 20+ years in private industry and another 20+ in a school system only to discover I would receive a reduction in my SS. To make matters worse, my 403b has taken a big hit. Were does one go from here? - keep working I guess. This is totally unfair.
Glenn
(logged in user) April 6, 2009, 4:19pm (report abuse)Hey, JR..read the post by Norm. Workers who paid into S.S. AND a government pension program, should be paid full EARNED benefits.
Glenn
(logged in user) April 6, 2009, 4:35pm (report abuse)If you were one of the millions screwed out of the benefits you EARNED, call, write or email your representatives and senators. Tell them to support H.R. 235 and S. 484.
JR
(logged in user) April 6, 2009, 6:23pm (report abuse)Glenn,
I've read all the crying and whining and still believe it is a fair method to keep government retireees from getting more than they deserve.
Glenn
(logged in user) April 7, 2009, 12:08am (report abuse)"Crying & whining?" Say, JR, why don't you tell us a little about yourself? Who do you work for? Do you pay into SS? Have you ever held a "government" job? Have you worked two separate careers? Why doesn't SSA just cut us each a check in the amount we paid in over the years, since, as of 2004, we are not going to be paid the benefits we earned?
Leah
(logged in user) April 7, 2009, 3:36pm (report abuse)Glenn:
What we paid into SS does not cover what they allow according to your income. That is why we have a mess right now.
I do not know what was the reason they set it up the way they did for government employees, but they must have had a reason for it in the first place and why.
Now the question is should there be a change and why. What merits this change and will it put SS in worse situation than it already is?
Also why are there two bills going in different directions for the same problem and why is that necessary?
For me it is a lot of questions with no real answers.
Leah
(logged in user) April 7, 2009, 3:38pm (report abuse)Looking at what I read when I got my pension I was not cut back on my SS, but it could raise my income to the point that I might have to pay taxes.
Gail
(logged in user) April 7, 2009, 7:42pm (report abuse)Glenn: GREAT!! THANK YOU. I worked Fed. (USDA) for 25+ yrs and I paid into the SS System prior to and after my fed career. My dec'd spouse paid into the SS System for over 45 years. I recieve -0- from SS based on my earnings or Surv. Benefit from my dec'd spouse because of the Offset. The statement that some folks choose not to hear is that "We paid into the SS System" just as they did." My spouse passed away prior to becoming SS age as I am sure many others did. Where are those funds? I have rec'd positive responses to letters sent to two CA Senators and my local Rep.in support of HR 235 & S 484.
Leah: you might want to consider doing some research on your own to get the answers to some of your questions. ie: Two bills are NOT going in different directions - two bodies of gov't are going in the SAME direction - HR 235 (House of Reps), S 484 (Senate).
Part1
April 8, 2009, 2:51pm (report abuse)The GPO and WEP provisions will increasingly affect women as the tsunami of baby-boomer retirements occur. Seventy-five percent of GPO/WEP-affected individuals are women and forty percent are currently widowed. These women may suffer 40-50% reduction in their Social Security benefits.
A Commissioner of Social Security, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, testified at a Senate Hearing that eliminating both provisions would increase the long-range actuarial deficit by 0.12 percent of taxable payroll – essentially the trust fund exhaustion date would advance by merely one year.
Consider that the 62-year old wife of a Social Security beneficiary is eligible for a monthly benefit – the wife of a Civil Service annuitant has no wife’s annuity at all.
The minor or disabled adult children of a Social Security beneficiary are eligible for benefits on the record of a retired or disabled parent – children of a Civil Service annuitant get nothing.
Part2
April 8, 2009, 2:55pm (report abuse)The widow of a Social Security beneficiary can receive widow’s benefits up to 100% of the amount previously received by the deceased husband, even if she never worked a day in her life. The Civil Service annuitant must pay a monthly “premium” to provide for a survivor’s annuity and the widow can never receive more than 55% of the husband’s annuity. If the wife dies first the Civil Service annuitant has forever lost that “premium” deducted every month for naught.
Only 10% of Social Security beneficiaries have to pay taxes and the majority of beneficiaries are exempt – Civil Service annuities are completely subject to Federal and most State income taxes.
Part3
April 8, 2009, 3:06pm (report abuse)Federal salaries, when compared to similar occupations in the non-federal workforce, were determined to be historically woefully inadequate. During boom years and during recession, our Presidents have also consistently used the “severe economic condition” clause to reduce proposed parity increases. Those employees and their families not only earned less than their peers in the private sector but now in retirement also suffer the egregious loss of social security benefits due to GPO/WEP.
If you worked over thirty years as a federal employee, paid 7% of salary into the civil service retirement system and had full retirement status, you would expect to receive a full pension benefit. If you worked a second job for the required number of years and also paid your Social Security taxes to be eligible to receive a worker benefit based on your work record, you would expect to receive any and all Social Security pension benefits. But this is not the case.
Part4
April 8, 2009, 3:07pm (report abuse)The GPO reduces a spouse's Social Security benefits by two-thirds if his or her partner received pension payments from a non-Social Security plan. Further, the complicated formula for the WEP cuts Social Security pension benefits by about 40 percent for retirees who also get pension checks from a non-Social Security plan. This is not fair.
In every recent Congress legislation has been proposed to repeal these provisions and bills have had, collectively in the House and Senate, 300 co-sponsors, certainly enough to have a positive vote. Yet these proposals languish in Committees. Especially now, with economic stimulus funding needed, these proposals should quickly get out of Congressional Committees for positive vote and the President should sign them into law immediately.
Glenn
(logged in user) April 8, 2009, 3:31pm (report abuse)Gail, I am a retired police officer. I also worked in the private sector for 18 years, paying into SS. When I was ready to start drawing my SS benefits, I discovered, in 2004, congress, in an effort to "save" SS, came up with GPO & WEP. Their goal was to decrease the amount of benefits being paid by SS. Instead of stopping fraud & payments to illegal aliens, they decided to take "earned" benefits away from "government" employees. They were able to say, "look, we did something to save SS!" Remember, most in congress are lawyers & they are all politicians. Most will say or do ANYTHING to stay in office. The movie,"Liar,Liar" was about as lawyer who couldn't lie for 24 hours...wish that would happen to congress!
Glenn
(logged in user) April 8, 2009, 3:36pm (report abuse)Sorry..."a" lawyer who couldn't lie.
Louis A. Garcia
April 8, 2009, 9:05pm (report abuse)I worked hard at my postal job. I worked had at my civian job paid my SS 1/4 to better my living in retirement. As far As I am consered The GOV. STOLE my money how would you like it, If I stole yours. I WOULD GET ARRSETED, why not Im only a working stiff.
DO AWAY WITH WEP AND GPO. IN THE NAME OF GOD. DO THE RIGHT THING
Carolyn Lee
April 9, 2009, 1:09pm (report abuse)I'm widow of railroad switchman;married 40 yrs, worked outside home over 25 yrs; raised three children,did what normal women do,plus took care of husband for 11 yrs w/strokes & Parkinson's. For 6 yrs, I have existed on 75% of what he rec'd, no cost-of-living increase, and will never receive MY S.S., unless this bill passes.Why are so many women living at or below the poverty level--look at the 'system'! Senators & Representatives.have a heart and do the right thing!
Tom & Kathy
April 10, 2009, 1:05pm (report abuse)My wife has 9 years of teachers pension plus many years of half time and substituting for which he gets no pension. She will have 22 years of substantial earnings at age 66 and her social security will be penalized at 50% of her teachers retirement of $600 per month or $300. The cap is $380. She also has about 5 years of 80% to 98% of substantial earnings which gives her zero years credit. At least changing the computation to assist those who worked their entire lives should be instituted.
jaspk
April 15, 2009, 4:56am (report abuse)JR still doesn't get it. My wife paid into and earned her UK pension. After coming to the US she worked and paid into SS. Now she is seeing her SS reduced because her UK pension is seen as a "windfall" even though she earned it and paid into it. So JR wouldn't complain if this happened to him?? Right!
ddc
April 17, 2009, 7:31am (report abuse)Maybe we need to organize instead of just posting comments...contact the media...march on D.C. If we accomplish nothing more it would bring attention to seniors' plight...and remind our representatives/senators/president that seniors are not dead yet and we do still vote.
Beth Kamradt
April 17, 2009, 1:12pm (report abuse)As a corporate leader who left the private sector to become a teacher -- to give back to my country -- it is outrageous that our country is punishing teachers by taking away their SS benefits during their senior years. PASS THIS LEGISLATION NOW!
Chuck
April 17, 2009, 4:56pm (report abuse)Combat in Korea, again in VietNam,20+yrs devoted to my country, another 18 to the Federal Govt but it's not enough to be paid a just Social Security income. I can only hope tha illegal that are being supported enjoy my yeaars orf work, apparently on their behalf
Pancho
April 18, 2009, 12:55am (report abuse)Why yes Chuck, we really do appreciate everything you have done for us. Thanks again.
Tim Marshall
April 21, 2009, 9:17am (report abuse)I worked 21 yrs in the SS system and was forced to early retirement due to BRAC. Now I can not draw full retirement or full SS. How fair is that
ddc
April 22, 2009, 2:21am (report abuse)So what are we doing about it? Action speaks much louder than words.
Tom Walsh
April 25, 2009, 2:24pm (report abuse)As a teacher retiree, I would like to point out that the federal confiscation of about 60 percent of my EARNED Social Security benefit due to the GPO provisions is not only unfair, it is wrong-headed.
In the years before I went into teaching, I was promised a full benefit at retirement for my SS contributions. Punishing me for choosing to become a teacher is certainly unfair.
If the current administration is truly interested in getting more consumer spending - and not consumer debt - they should realize that to restore my Social Security Benefit to what I actually earned, beginning in 1950 would accomplish that result. Believe me, my age cohorts are not likely stuff any added income under the mattress. We are going to spend it. It would be wrong-headed to think otherwise.
Sallye Sickman
April 26, 2009, 4:29pm (report abuse)This bill is pending in the House Ways and Means Comm. It's easy to e-mail your protest. Go to:
http://waysandmeans.house.
gov/contact.asp Choose Chairman, add your comments, and then go again and choose webmaster. We need to bombard them !!
Greg
(logged in user) April 27, 2009, 7:14pm (report abuse)Thanks to everyone for their input. So who do we thank for getting us into this mess to begin with? Is there anyone out there not outraged that there are those who will receive SS benefits who NEVER paid into the system!!! My wife spent over 27 years in the education business (CA)and can not recieve my survivor benefit. I spent 40 years in the federal law enforcement and served a tour in Viet Nam... Yes, I'm mad as can be, you should be too.
Mark II
April 29, 2009, 8:41pm (report abuse)14 states of affected teachers, firefighters, public safety personnel, and civil servants SHOULD be a force, but isolated and lacking a clear focus, we are not. I have suggested before that we contact and direct our colleagues (in our areas of influence and geographical regions) to a website created by some of our tech savvy friends and mount an effort that calls for President Obama to make good on his support (October '08)of the repeal of WEP/GPO!.
Mark
April 29, 2009, 8:43pm (report abuse)III
Now is the time to act! Send this to someone who can do the IT work of getting our message OUT to the country. Post the website here and put the info out on WEP/GPO blogs, radio broadcasts and local letters-to- the-editor. Continue to speak to your colleagues about the need to act ..and stay on message until WEP/GPO is repealed.
Elizabeth D.
May 4, 2009, 8:21am (report abuse)I think the GPO/WEP is very unfair. I worked for the state of LA. for 30 years but only have 10 yrs. retirement pay. My late husband paid into the social security system for 40+ years. When I retired and applied for widow's benefits, was the first time I heard about the GPO. I was devastated to find out the amount of ss benefits I would receive. It is most unfair and I pray that it will be repealed.
Joyellis
(logged in user) May 4, 2009, 11:21am (report abuse)I have been reading the comments of 'JR' and must tell him that I am now in my 46th year of teaching. When I began at age 20, I signed my teaching contract without any awareness, or stated option of paying into SS. I would have, if I had known. You did not have to then, but would receive your spousal benefit, as spouses in other professions do today. Just as many of these postings indicate...you have no clue that this will happen until you reach old age and go to sign up for SS...in this case, my husband's death spousal benefit that he thought I would get. It is like a contract broken by the government. Teachers today have the option of paying into both a teacher's retirement AND SS. I did not. The spouse of a corporation today is able to receive the benefits of their deceased, or living, spouse ALONG with whatever other retirement benefits those wealthy CEO receive. Why is it right to penalize me for teaching those CEO's, etc.?
Joyellis
(logged in user) May 4, 2009, 11:29am (report abuse)I should also add that I worked outside of education during my summers and received my own 40 credits...which now with both the Windfall and the GPO is also reduced to near '0'. These provisions so need to be repealed.
pgj
May 4, 2009, 4:47pm (report abuse)For those in the state of California, contact your state legislators in your district to vote for the following bill. Hearing/vote will be held on May 6, 2009
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AJR_10
KNP2BP
(logged in user) May 4, 2009, 5:52pm (report abuse)Joyellis and Glenn are 100% correct. All they are asking for is to be compensated equally under the law - and only for the amounts THEY PAID INTO. Why is it no one has a problem with people in private industry garnering a retirement from the company in addition to collecting social security? My stepfather receives his pension from a private firm he never paid into but was ENTITLED TO, his social security, and in addition, my mother receives 1/2 of his social security (his is the max ss because he was the VP of a huge firm making big bucks - so she gets 1/2 of HIS SS instead of what she earned over the years)! Yes - she had the ability to choose which $ amount she wanted - social security from hers or his! Anyway - Joyellis and Glenn worked under two systems and should qualify for compensation under two systems - just like my stepfather. FYI JR - the majority of federal and state employees are not overpaid.
LaRouge
(logged in user) May 6, 2009, 3:36am (report abuse)Widowed at age 55. Retired after 23 years of service for the State of Alaska. I am ineligible to draw my husband's SS at age 60 as allowed by law for ALL other widows not affected by a government pension. My husband's SS earnings were NOT from a government pension but because mine is I can't draw. His death was untimely leaving me unexpectedly financially insecure. This is an unfair law causing financial hardship for many people. I have a cousin who drives a school bus in Texas. The drivers are employees for the school district so they fall under this same unfair legislation. If her husband should pass away she would be left to survive on her wages with no help from his SS benefits. Somebody...please...make this right and vote to support repeal of this unfair law.
John S. McKinney
May 8, 2009, 10:08pm (report abuse)I have work for the USPS 37 years under Cvil service retirement, 27 years Social Security other than government and two years Rail Road Retirement. In January 2010 I'll be 66 years old. I've been married for 34 years. SS benefits will be reduced!!!!!! I need to work three more years under SS to receive full benefits for me and my wife????????????? Is this FAIR, for a Vietnam Vet father of two....
Mark
May 8, 2009, 11:43pm (report abuse)CA teachers (active and retired) follow this website:
http://www.socialsecurityfairness.com/Home_Page.html
Northern CA is finally "Doing Something" about WEP/GPO! A RALLY on 5/30/2009 in Berkeley.
This is an organized, focused movement not interested in sitting on the sidelines wringing their hands....they are ACTING.
All other professional organizations in OTHER states who read this blog, should send them their LINK to include in the FIRST website I have seen that supports REPEAL of WEP/GPO! Connect the disparate professional organizations across the country and create CRITICAL MASS. Reach out and connect your organization.
Act NOW!
Karen Davenport
May 10, 2009, 1:49pm (report abuse)This bill should be passed. It gives people (in retirement) what they have worked for and contributed to (just as their co-workers).
If things stay the way they are, good people will not enter the professionas of police, firemen, and teachers. These jobs are of such a nature that people need to be physically and mentally youthful. Therefore, retirement maybe earlier than other professions. However, many of these people still are productive and want to work. They should not be penalized for earlier work.
Karen Davenport
May 10, 2009, 1:55pm (report abuse)JR, I am sure you are exactly the type of person who wants what they worked for. People who have worked in government and in the public sector are not sitting around collecting welfare. They are working! Why don't you get on a cause like repealing give aways instead of dumping on hard working people who have contributed to SS equal to you.
Frank B
May 12, 2009, 5:59pm (report abuse)ATTENTION "ACTIVE" government, state, city, county, town emplyoees if you live in one of the many states that have a pension system and have worked in the private sector, paid into SS, support the repeal of the WEP/GPO.
~ Richard ~
May 15, 2009, 8:33am (report abuse)Take a look at this site:
http://www.socialsecurityfairness.com/Home_Page.html
What a bold and gutsy approach this woman is taking. The
site is very informative and extremely helpful especially the boiler-plate letters which will help you to GET INVOLVED!.
Mark
May 15, 2009, 7:42pm (report abuse)Nor Cal teachers are having a Social Security Fairness Rally on May 30th at 11 AM at the Berkeley Community Theatre. Check out this website and duplicate it in your state or professional organization.
http://www.socialsecurityfairness.com/Home_Page.html
Combine efforts across the country to send letters/emails to your Representatives in support of HR 235 an S 484 starting on May 15th.
~ Richard ~
May 18, 2009, 12:44pm (report abuse)Are you disgusted that AARP has chosen to not take a stand on these issues?
Then, send a Fax or write a letter to the new CEO. A sample follows:
~ Richard ~
May 18, 2009, 12:47pm (report abuse)A. Barry Rand, CEO
AARP National Office
601 E. Street NW,
Washington, DC 20049
Fax #: 1-202-434-7710
Dear Mr. Rand;
As you know, two bills have recently been presented to our legislators, one to the House (H.R. 235) and one to the Senate (S.484). These bills, if passed, would repeal two unjust laws that have financially disadvantaged teachers for decades. The Windfall Elimination and the Government Pension Offset Provisions are discriminatory towards teachers.
They dictate that teachers may not collect social security from deceased spouses, or collect social security at levels other participants in the system do — even when they paid into social security from another job prior to, or during their teaching career. These discriminatory laws also impact the pool of qualified people who may enter teaching; they discourage people from entering teaching because many would lose previously earned social security.
~ R ~ [continued]
May 18, 2009, 12:48pm (report abuse)The involvement of AARP is vital to repealing these provisions that penalize educators and public service employees in fifteen states. For that reason, there is no justification for entangling the straightforward matter of repealing these unfair offsets with any other Social Security issues.
AARP has an obligation to help make sure no educator or public sector employee loses benefits they or their spouses have earned. Please let me know specifically what you are doing to achieve the long-overdue elimination of the GPO and WEP.
Cordially,
~ Richard ~
May 18, 2009, 1:03pm (report abuse)Have you contacted YOUR Members of Congress through the Toll Free #’s of The Capitol Hill Switchboard: 1-877-851-6437, 1-800-828-0498, or 1-800-614-2803?
Did you ask for the office of your Senator or Representative [you needed to dial again for each different one]?
When you asked what the Representative’s position on H.R.235 or the Senator’s position on S.484 is, what were you told?
Then, regardless of whether you got a yea or nay, did you TELL THEM you want that elected official to take the necessary steps to get the bill on to the floor of the House or Senate for debate and vote?
Take a moment to tell us about it with a post, here.
If we all do our part rather than relying on someone else to do it, we will make it happen.
TAKE ACTION - GET INVOLVED!
Norma
May 25, 2009, 6:05pm (report abuse)This has gone on far too long. I've been writing letters to my reps since 2001! Let's get this to a vote, please!!! My ss was cut because I worked for my local school department. What IS the reason we can't move on this legislation?
CRT
May 27, 2009, 8:49am (report abuse)"What IS the reason we can't move on this legislation?"
The reason there is no movement is because there is no reason to change it. What is currently in place is fair and should remain.
~ Richard ~
May 27, 2009, 12:18pm (report abuse)To: CRT [&/or JR]
Did you read Norm's post of March 28, 2009, 1:54am above?
Have you looked at: ?
~ R ~
May 27, 2009, 12:32pm (report abuse)Well, the Hyper-link was stripped out of the 2nd question above. Please refer to: ~ Richard ~ May 15, 2009, 8:33am, above for the link.
Ron K.
May 28, 2009, 10:05am (report abuse)I have worked my entire life as a public school teacher. I have always had to supplement my income with part time jobs. I have paid MORE than my fair share into Social Security. To penalize me for qualifying for benefits I am entitled to is unfair. Actions such as this are disgraceful. Shame on anyone who opposes this legislation.
CRT
May 28, 2009, 11:55pm (report abuse)I read Norm's remarks. He believes the WEP reasoning is faulty. I don't and apparently neither do the folks in congress. If they did this change would have passed long ago.
Ron K.,
You are not being penalized for benefits you are entitled to. In fact you are still receiving more than you should because the formulas used allow for higher percentages, even with the WEP.
SteveOlsen
(logged in user) May 30, 2009, 6:27pm (report abuse)CRT:
Your view of "action" is a bit off tack ... the reason this legislation has historically struggled is related to the "desire" of some elected folks to want to adress ALL of Social Security reform; not reform one issue at a time.
It has been hard to get traction against that inertia. It's great you don't agree. But the current process is simply UNFAIR.
I worked FULL TIME outside education, and have a right to my social security EARNED benefits. Inertia should not strip me of those rights.
James III
June 6, 2009, 7:46pm (report abuse)More and more retiring "boomers"
are enraged to find out that they
have been "screwed out " of their
"full" - justly earned Social Security income. WE are all in 15
states that penalize via GPO/WEP.
It's very important that you join
your state retiree association
(education,police,firemen,gov't,etc) and "fight for your entitled
full Soc. Sec. payment. Social
Security will undergo a massive
restructing in the near future.
The current income cap of $80,000 (?) for taxable soc. sec. benefits will be lifted...and high incomes ($100,000+)will be taxed. Retirement ages will move
up. IT is at this time that the move to REPEAL GPO/WEP will be made. Follow Richard's advice for
direct contact with your Senator or
Representative. However, I have donated "MONEY" to several Democratic Senate candidates to insure a "super majority" of 60
Dem. Senators to fend off the "Ultra neo-cons" who are for
the WALL Sreet gang...and not the
little man or woman on the street.
john tirrell
June 8, 2009, 11:55am (report abuse)I left private employment to teach high school now I find that by doing so I lost $360 in social security payments per month. I this fair? Why ask anyone to leave their jobs and teach.
Bob R
June 9, 2009, 11:42am (report abuse)Just another example of how teachers are perceived in this country. A group of individuals who educate the youth of our nation through their entire lives only to be abused at the end of their lives by uncaring nation .....
Armaan
June 10, 2009, 11:13pm (report abuse)When is the vote? When do we find out if it passed?
CRT
June 11, 2009, 8:07am (report abuse)SteveOlsen,
If you worked enough years with substantial earnings then you won't see any effect from WEP. If not, then you should see the effect. This is only fair, based on the current front-loaded method of calculating the benefit for lower wage-earners. The alternative is to change the formula and reduce the initial percentage calculation for everyone. Then the WEP would be unnecessary. But to do this would be infair to those lifetime low-earners who really need the benefit. But then I suppose you would think that is the way it should be.
James III
June 11, 2009, 10:04am (report abuse)CRT:
Please read my comment..listed
above yours and ADD, if anything,
what you know to be recommended
changes to Social Security in the
near future.
~ R ~
June 11, 2009, 9:52pm (report abuse)James III;
Go to the H.R. 235 side of WashingtonWatch.com to see what PGJ on May 28, 2009, 12:47pm speculated.
Justiceforall
June 14, 2009, 3:52pm (report abuse)I have worked over 25 years as a police officer. I also worked in the private sector paying SS for an addditional 20 years. How can one justify the reduction in my SS payments? Totally UNFAIR!
srk part 1
June 20, 2009, 12:43am (report abuse)I began teaching in 1999, after working in the private sector for 22 years. I lost two years of seniority because after working as a substitute teacher for 2 years, I worked one full year, then worked a job share the second year. I did not find out until two years later that I had to start over on my tenure date. I was not made aware of the Social Security Offset issues until 3 years ago. Last year I learned that, not only do I forfeit 40% of my social security earned benefits, but all of my survivor benefits if my husband dies before me. I was told by an investment counselor that it would be in my best interest to quit teaching, cash out my teaching retirement, work 5 more years in a job that pays into Social Security, at which time the government doesn't look back at the lump-sum retirement. I have worked twice as many hours as I am paid for, for 10 years, which is already insulting. Now this slap-in-the-face. I am totally demoralized, and it is affecting my health.
srk part 2
June 20, 2009, 12:49am (report abuse)I have been talking to other teachers, over the past year. Several of them have come to teaching as a second career and know nothing of this terrible injustice. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked for people from the private sector in math and science to become teachers. We need to start writing letters to newspaper editorials to warn people of the injustice that awaits them if they choose to come into teaching. I feel bad that I discourage people from becoming teachers. The National Education Association should put their influence fully behind the Social Security Fairness Act, as should AARP, and every state and local teachers union.
Just Judy
June 20, 2009, 5:27pm (report abuse)Social Security began being taken out of my paychecks when I was 14, and then when I moved to California and started having CALSTRS pension monies taken I was not informed that I was going to lose 1/2 the monies I had hoped to have when I retired. I may never be able to retire with this bill not being passed, I am sure I am not alone
Marilyn Rodriguez
June 24, 2009, 2:57pm (report abuse)The Windfall Elimination Provision is grossly inequitable, not to mention unfair. People working in the public sector are usually paid less than those in the private sector and now we're getting cheated out of the Social Security we earned over our working lives.
..
June 25, 2009, 12:08am (report abuse)For Marilyn Rodriguez:
Just where did you ever get the idea that public sector wages are lower? Do just a little research and you will find that is certainly not true. Time to find another excuse.
ERADIC
June 25, 2009, 9:25pm (report abuse)After spending 38 years of my life serving this wonderful country as a public school teacher, I was dishearted when I went down to apply for my SS payments. I was astounded to find that I was going to loose apx. 67% of what I had coming based upon what I had payed in. I started paying into the fund when I was 12 as I was helping to support my family which had a very low annual income.
Let's get together and make sure the new bills are passed and we will then get our FAIR SHARE.
..
June 26, 2009, 9:55am (report abuse)Methinks ERADIC is stretching the truth quite a bit. The WEP only applies to the first part of the calculation and then the maximum reduction is less than he claims. Perhaps a bit of drama to make others feel sorry?
meknows
July 1, 2009, 3:45pm (report abuse)methinks should change name to headempty . I earned, my SS by showing up to work and paying what was required at the time. Now I would like to have all of my earned payments and don't think that is asking too much. Some cross the border and have a child and are paid for only showing up. I paid up front and now I want what is earned.
Glenn
(logged in user) July 1, 2009, 9:23pm (report abuse)methinks...........are you in our situation? If not, you are an idiot and can stick your comments up yhour a**. There is no reason to be polite to an idiot.
Glenn
(logged in user) July 1, 2009, 9:24pm (report abuse)Sorry, methinks..."your a**!" Please excuse the typo.
Carolyn
July 3, 2009, 2:59pm (report abuse)I have read and reread everything that has been written here and nowhere does anyone say that we are not getting our state pension for nothing...when I worked for the state they took 7.5% of my wages for over 20 years to cover my pension...I have also had SS deducted from my check for close to 30 years....I think that the SS benefits should be granted to all of us who have put into the system...those who have never worked and given to Social Security should not be considered.....Is this just or not????
Carolyn
July 3, 2009, 3:04pm (report abuse)I believe that those of us who have had deductionbs for the SS from their paycheck should be fully eligible for SS benefits....Those who never put into social security should not..I have had 7.5% of my check for 20 years taken for my state pension and I have had money deducted from my payroll check for 30 years for social security....Our state and local teachers pensions are not free...we have paid into them just as people pay into social security.....
srk
(logged in user) July 5, 2009, 12:59pm (report abuse)CRT keeps referring to the front current front-loaded method of calculating the benefit for lower wage-earners making the current WEP/GPO fair. According to my CalSTRS advisor and
Social Security Administration, if I earn $1500 a month at age 62 from CalSTRS, 2/3s of that is deducted from what I would earn from my Social Security benefits, and I lose ALL of my survivor benefits from my husband's SS, if he preceeds me in death. Since the ammount of SS that I should be entitled to would be about $1500 before adjustments for WEP/GPO, I would earn $2100 a month instead of $4500. Please explain why I should pay the additional $2400 PER MONTH in taxes(an additional tax on me that no other citizen working in the private sector is required to pay)? I am sure, you consider me greedy for wanting money that my husband and I have earned over our lifetime. I am confident that you also want to see a single-payer health plan, and my current health benefits taxed. We need to agree to disagree.