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 (131 comments ↓ | 3 wiki edits)
S. 484 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.
()
[1,148 views]
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Jan
July 7, 2009, 12:03pm (report abuse)This is where I found how the CalSTRS retirement and Social Security will work. According to this the most I will lose is 50 percent of $744, or $372. I don't think your CalSTRS advisor is correct on the offset.
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html
The other thing to consider is if you have more than 20 years under Social Security your offset is less. It says this is reduced by 5 percent for each year over 20 years if you meet the earnings levels. I don't have that so it looks like I will see a reduction of $372. I don't particularly like it but it is much less than the CalSTRS people told me it would be.
Mikey
July 8, 2009, 2:43am (report abuse)SRK,
I think maybe you have been given some bad information. Or possibly there is some misunderstanding of what you are talking about.
Under the WEP, your social security benefit can only be reduced by a maximum of $374 dollars if you retire this year. There is no dollar for dollar offset under WEP.
MarthaB
July 9, 2009, 6:24pm (report abuse)I haven't read the Bill word for word, but I am penalized by both the WEP and GPO. My California pension is less than $900, and SS sends me either 1/2 of my own SS, or 1/3 of my spouse's benefit-whichever is larger. I still teach part time at age 80 because I am single and I can't live on my retirement income! If I could receive just what I paid in or what other spouses (who didn't work) receive, I'd be at least ok. I'll be happy with "ok".
catherine austin
July 10, 2009, 9:59am (report abuse)My husband and I worked for 15 years under the Social Security System.We have also worked 20 years under the Maine State Retirment System with no option for paying in to Social Security. We will lose a third of our monthly income because of the government pension offset! You try to live on $2000 a month with no guaranteed health insurance?
JK
July 13, 2009, 2:45pm (report abuse)It will die in committee unless each of us does the following:
EMAIL President Obama at www.whitehouse.gov.
“REPEAL the WEP/GPO” in the subject line!
CALL Speaker Pelosi at her California office 415-556-4862.
FAX Senate Majority Leader Reid at 202-224-7327.
Contact all in congress.
We need to let our voices be heard. Just complaining on this page will not get anything done
Ralph Kush
July 13, 2009, 10:18pm (report abuse)It is about time we join together and present ourseleves as a group that will not vote for any candidate who does not vote to get the GPO eliminated.
...
July 14, 2009, 8:53am (report abuse)Sorry Ralph and JK, but none of that will have the effect you want. At some point all of you will finally understand that there is no interest in changing the WEP/GPO. It is what it is and they like it that way. If you think you have the political clout to make change happen you are living in a fantasy world.
ch
July 16, 2009, 11:05am (report abuse)I became a widow as of June 1, 2009,when my spouse died at the age of 48. Things have been difficult enough, but now I learn that I will not be able to collect my husbands social security benefits when I retire because I am a teacher in California. I have also paid into social security from previous employment, and I won't be able to get that benefit either because of the WEP/GPO. This policy needs to be repealed, because it it discriminatory to service employees who work for little money as it is, and have equally paid into the system. It is also highly discriminatory towards women who make up the majority of teachers in California.I encourage all law makers to change this unfair policy that is highly discriminatory.
...
July 16, 2009, 4:14pm (report abuse)So now we play the "dicrimination" card as well. When will all you crybabies figure out that all your mewling will have no effect. If the people who make changes thought it should be changed it would already be chnaged. Get over it.
JK
July 16, 2009, 9:19pm (report abuse)If you want something done here are the members of the committee contact them.
Subcommittee on Social Security
Subcommittee Home | Members | Jurisdiction | Hearings | Legislation
Members of the 111th Congress
Democrats Republicans
John S. Tanner, TN Chairman
Earl Pomeroy, ND
Allyson Y. Schwartz, PA
Xavier Becerra, CA
Lloyd Doggett, TX
Ron Kind, WI
Joseph Crowley, NY
Linda T. Sanchez, CA
John A. Yarmuth, KY
Sam Johnson, TX
Kevin Brady, TX
Pat Tiberi, OH
Ginny Brown-Waite, FL
Dave G. Reichert, WA
James III
July 18, 2009, 9:02am (report abuse)To "no name" Mr. Negative:
IT will be changed. But we will
have to be a little more patient.
When "they" decide to revamp Soc.
Sec. - probably in 18 months to
correct defeciencies in the funding
model WEP/ GPO will be eliminated.
The money going to deserving
citizens will be viewed as a
"stimulus for the man and women"
on the "street". Just ignore
"negative comments" from uniformed
individual and "HANG IN THERE!"
...
July 18, 2009, 4:11pm (report abuse)James III,
I seriously doubt you or I will live long enough to see any substantive changes made to social security, other than to strip away benefits in order to pay for the massive debt this country is building. If you consider that "stimulus for the man and women on the "street" then you will certainly be stimulated.
James III
July 20, 2009, 9:17am (report abuse)Point taken. But you fail to state
the 80 - 90 "billion" a year that "W" wasted in Iraq over
a 7 - 8 yr. period. "W" really put us in the hole. Tenyears is what it will cost to give "screwed GPO/WEP victims" their just due. Social Security will be revised: all incomes will be taxed to build the pool back up.Retirement age will raised.
I really don't need the Soc. Sec.
money.But- I have 21 yrs. of work wherein Soc. Sec. was deducted. It's MY money - earned ! I have a defined benefit pension..but SO many Americans have been screwed out of their 401 accts that bitterness has sprung up between private sector and public
sector retires. Most of it coming
from the private sector people.
...
July 20, 2009, 8:28pm (report abuse)And just how much will be wasted by "O" before the country comes to it's senses? There will be so much debt that I cannot even visualixe how much it is. Raising taxes on everyone, and you can be sure that will happen, regardless of the campaign promise rhetoric, just to p1$$ away money is absolute lunacy.
In the end I do not expect any movement on any type of meaningful social security reform, simply because the citizens who are now paying the bills will eventually stand up and say "Enough."
Ky ret. teacher
July 20, 2009, 11:32pm (report abuse)Not only do I not get my spouse benefits, and my own benfits from my 1st career are reduced by 67% , to add insult to injury I must include my husband's income to calculate Medicare B premiums... which takes most of what little is left away! The only "double dipping" is the Feds: they keep all of his portion and 67% of mine!
James III
July 21, 2009, 9:09am (report abuse)Mr. Negative:
You refuse to concede my point that
much of our present indebt situation is directly attributable to "W" our "Boy General" President( and coward)
via 7 yrs. of warfare, catering to the rich, etc and corporations.
Talking to you is like talkin to
a "stone".
Bien Hoa, Vietnam 67 - 68
...
July 21, 2009, 2:30pm (report abuse)Where did I "refuse to concede" your point? I simply commented on the current mess that is being created. Get you panties unwadded and pay attention.
Carly
July 31, 2009, 4:00pm (report abuse)Elimination of the Offset & windfall provisions of the SS Act is long overdue. Like many others I worked under Civil Service & SS and contributed to both but I am being punished for working & contributing because I cannot collect my full benefits. The everyday cost of living has become so burdensome and like others I need the money I worked so hard for. As it stands now, I will have to work forever just to keep up with daily expenses.
...
July 31, 2009, 5:33pm (report abuse)You say you are being punished but it appears you are being treated fairly. You will receive a fair benefit but not more than you should.
Geri
August 7, 2009, 5:18pm (report abuse)I worked for the IRS over 20 years After 1982 Pres Reagan introduced the offset term to help SS. All government workers were in our own pension funds,if you had a break in service as I and came back maternity leave you were incorporated into the new pension system paying into SS and CS. After more than 40 quarters required for SS I could only receive 2/3 of my SS because of the offset clause. I cannot receive any amount from my husband and am denied his benefits if he should pass before me. Ihave been fighting for many years to repeal this law through my representitives without sucess. Hopefuly this bill will attract more attention and correction for so many out there.
Thea
August 13, 2009, 7:48pm (report abuse)I am a divorce financial analyst. Although WEP and GPO are bad, the treatment for the same affected workers is even worse in divorce. That's because social security is considered separate property while government pensions are considered marital property.
So, if you are a teacher who didn't pay into SS, 50% of the marital value or monthly benefits of your teacher's pension will go to your ex-spouse. And, the ex-spouse will also get 100% of his/her SS benefits. But, the GPO will reduce the 50% of your ex-spouse's claim for benefits to $0. I have clients who have lost well over $100,000 in divorce settlements because of this. I am working with a divorce attorney to get legislators to see the awful inequity. The offset provisions need to be repealed and social security needs to be a marital asset. The military pensions became a marital asset in 1982 and it's time to change SS as well.
If you know of anyone in that situation, they need to stay out of court and be forewarned.
srk
(logged in user) August 14, 2009, 8:47pm (report abuse)Mel and PJG clearly do not understand the effects of WEP/GPO. I worked in business for 22 years before going into teaching. If I retire at 60, with 15 years in teaching, I will get $1500 a month for my CALSTRS retirement. I would have received about $1,000 from Social Security, but will lose 2/3s of that with the offset. If my husband dies (after putting into SS for 40 years), I am NOT ENTITLED TO ANY SPOUSAL BENEFITS. In effect, I have to pay about $2,200 per month to the government FOR LIFE because I will not receive that money. I am only asking for the SS benefits that I have invested in for 22 years. So PJG, please stop saying that I want more than I have earned or am entitled to. No wonder the attrition rate for new teachers is 50%. The lucky ones find out about WEP/GPO before they feel they are trapped in a career that demands 65 to 70 hours a week work, for which one receives pay for 35 hours, and lose half of our earned retirement.
~ Richard ~
August 19, 2009, 9:24am (report abuse)Thea,
Glad to have you on board. Clarification though: If I precede my wife in death, she gets none of the benefits I've accrued for 50+ years. Yet, if she precedes me, I'm entitled to half her TRS which is a shamefully unfair one-way-street. Is that in sync with your second paragraph?
~ R ~, again...
August 19, 2009, 9:31am (report abuse)...to Thea. That's half her TRS with no reduction in the SocSec benifits I'm receiving. In other words the offsets affect only her, not myself and that is grossly unfair.
Sue
(logged in user) August 23, 2009, 4:04pm (report abuse)How do I know the status of S484 and HR 235 bills now. How well are they progressing. Chances Bills will make it before the end of the 2009 year. I cannot find out discussions in senate or house re these bills?
~ R ~
August 24, 2009, 7:54am (report abuse)Sue,
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!
...
August 24, 2009, 8:00am (report abuse)srk,
It appears that you are the one who does not understand. Ask someone who understands to explain it to you in one or two syllable words.
JD
August 24, 2009, 8:15am (report abuse)For those of you concerned with the GPO you should ask your congressfolk to seperate this legislation into two parts. The WEP is unlikely to ever be repealed and it is holding back any possibility of GPO repeal.
PTS
(logged in user) August 25, 2009, 6:29pm (report abuse)To get lots more information about WEP and GPO visit www.socialsecurityfairness.com
pvb
(logged in user) August 27, 2009, 2:49pm (report abuse)this bill basically rights a wrong that occurred many years ago. It's really a no-brainer. It's time that politicians start doing the right thing for people and not the special interest groups. People that have justly qualified for ss benefits like their counterparts in the private sector are being penalized unfairly. They want nothing more than just the benefit they are entitled to.
It's the right thing to do, the American way-----
...
August 27, 2009, 6:09pm (report abuse)Yeah, the "American Way", which means get all you can even if it isn't right. The WEP corrects a wrong that was allowing somne to collevt more than they should. Now those who aren't allowed to collect more than they really earned are upset and want to grab more.
jk
August 31, 2009, 10:20am (report abuse)If you have not read the article in AARP this month, go to www.aarpmagazine.org
and read under personal finance ( money)
"Boost Your Income!"
A line from the article "Every year, retirees pass up a whopping $10.1 BILLION in Social Security benefits."
See how some are getting more than their fair share while we get a penalty.
If you have not already called your reps in Washington this should inspire many calls.
~ R ~
August 31, 2009, 3:57pm (report abuse)Are you disgusted that AARP has chosen to not take a stand on these issues?
Then, send a Fax or letter to the new CEO. The text of the one I sent can be found posted a page back dated May 18, 2009, 12:47pm
Charles Martinez
September 3, 2009, 12:21pm (report abuse)I devoted 28 years of my life as a CA professional fire fighter saving lives and property. When I retired my social security amount was only $200 per month.
...
September 4, 2009, 4:35pm (report abuse)Charles Martinez,
So do you think it should have been more? How many years and at what salary levels did you work under social security. After all, you spent 28 years not covered by social security.
...
September 5, 2009, 9:29am (report abuse)And by the way Charles, didn't you get a pretty nice retirement from the fire department as well?
~ Richard ~
September 6, 2009, 3:46pm (report abuse)After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said:
'Let me see if I've got this right. 'You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.
'You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.
'You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job.
'You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.
(continued)
~ R ~ (continued)
September 6, 2009, 3:48pm (report abuse)'You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.
'You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletin board, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps.
'You want me to do all this and then you tell me I’ll have to forfeit 2/3 of the Social Security benefits I’ve accrued outside the classroom, in this state and others, as well all the spousal benefits as if my spouse never existed?
Paul Larsen
September 8, 2009, 6:43am (report abuse)That's about as dumb as anything you have posted so far Richard. You play the same old song over and over and it is still a bunch of crap. Food stamps - sure don't see any teachers working for that kind of salary around here. Starting salary is $33,500 and goes up every year. Not rich but satisfied. My retirement will be at least 1/2 of my final salary when I decide I want to retire and will likely 2/3, depending on how many years I teach.
Here's an idea - leave the teaching to those who want to do it and go on about your little life doing something else.
~ R ~
September 8, 2009, 7:07pm (report abuse)Well, how 'bout that! No name, tripple dot or '...' has a real name after all.
...
September 10, 2009, 12:31am (report abuse)Ah, would that it were so. But alas, 'tis not.
Z
September 13, 2009, 12:00am (report abuse)I agree with Norm. People against this bill do not understand what the bill is about. If someone worked for a private company and contributed to SS, they should be paid the full amount of benefits if they later worked for a government agency.
Paul Larsen
September 14, 2009, 12:15am (report abuse)Z,
I know full well what the bill is about. I will be affected by the WEP and I completely understand it. I have 15 years of social security covered employment and I will see an offset when I choose to begin drawing social security because of my teacher retirement. If you took the time to read about the WEP background perhaps you too would understand. But I hold little hope of that.
jerry
September 29, 2009, 2:25pm (report abuse)I worked under the Social Security system for 20 years, which happens to be the exact time to get the maximum amount of loss of social security benefits. Even though there was a fairly large amount of money for the time and location, it was long enough ago that the benefit from it would not be too great, about $700, even if I were to get all of it. But I'll get less than half of the amount, and I can't get it until I'm 67. I taught in
California after that time, but the amount of time I had left to teach gives me a pittance of retirement. My wife and I will be living on less than the poverty level when I retire. Teachers who taught continuously will do well, but I'm being penalized for teaching.
Wilemut
October 8, 2009, 3:34pm (report abuse)Yep. Same here. I worked at a community college as a part timer for about 8 years and had no clue that they weren't taking out FICA. The pension from there is just a dribble. I figured my SS would be full, but now I find out they are reducing it by 1/3 for just those 8 years of teaching. What about the rest of my almost 30 years of work where they did take out SS? I wasn't always a teacher, but those years were my highest earnings.
Here are my recommendations:
1. Write your congress people!
2. Write your congress people!
3. Write your congress people!
I have said this on 3 of these Washington Watch sites now. The other bills that have been introduced are: HR235 and HR2145.
HR235 looks like it's making some headway for California. Every other state except CA had the good sense to take out FICA.
Please write to support all of these bills. They are completely unfair. It is just too late for the government to try to make up for their mistake prior to 1983.
...
October 9, 2009, 12:42am (report abuse)"had no clue that they weren't taking out FICA" And you were working in education? Geez, no wonder the education system in this country is so screwed up.
And just so you know, not every other state withholds FICA on psrt-time education folks.
jk
October 13, 2009, 11:58am (report abuse)Not every other state takes out SSfor Public employees.
They include Alaska, California, Connecticut,Georgia,Illinois,Louisiana,Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts,Missouri,Nevada, Ohio,Rhode,Island, Texas.
Kevin McKay
October 19, 2009, 4:07pm (report abuse)I starting paying into Social Security at age 15 I enlisted in the Air Force at 19 and spent 26 yrs on active duty. Then of all things I contacted Troops to Teachers upon retirement and became a school teacher in Texas paying into TRS. Now after all my service to this country and community my spouse and I will get screwed because of those who thought GPO and WEP were good ideas.
For McKay
October 20, 2009, 2:15pm (report abuse)Check the rules on substantial earnings. You will find that you will probably not suffer much, if any, hit due to WEP. Your 26 years of Air Force will reduce your WEP significantly.
Mark
October 24, 2009, 2:09am (report abuse)www.ssfairness.com is the ONLY grassroots organization working FOR all public service employees in the 15 affected states. We are building coalitions with disparate organizations across the country to "educate and unite" public service employees about WEP/GPO! Go to www.ssfairness.com then send the address to all public service employees you know. If YOU are affected you must act!
Patsy
November 20, 2009, 12:47pm (report abuse)Worked 29 years in Mississippi, then worked 11 years in Louisiana. Tried to retire, but was told that my SS benefits would be only $1,200 monthly, because I was out of the SS plan for ten years and Louisiana did not pay into the SS plan. Also, I did not have enough quarters for disability. I am a cancer survival who had to return to work at age 63, in order to live.