Home

Blog

H.R. 711, The Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2015 (241 comments ↓)

H.R. 711 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the windfall elimination provision and protect the retirement of public servants.

(read more ↓)
[270 views]

Who Sponsored and Cosponsored This Bill?


(show list ↓)

To What Comittee was this Bill Referred?

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Page 1 of 4: « First/Oldest | ‹ Previous | Next › | Last/Newest »

***

February 6, 2015, 10:44pm (report abuse)

THE WEP IS FAIR!

It keeps a bunch of no-paying individuals from getting a bigger benefit than they deserve. These same individuals are the ones whining because thay are not allowed to rip the rest of us off for something they don't deserve.

Dally

February 8, 2015, 10:29pm (report abuse)

Sounds like the same old whine from the scammers and scumbags.

"GIMME GIMME GIMME"

teacher

February 9, 2015, 8:20am (report abuse)

NOT TRUE! Most of the people who are affected have paid their SS quarters in to the system BEFORE they went into teaching. I worked for over 20 years before I went into teaching paying all my SS quarters into the sytem. I found out when I retired that all my SS benefits were being taken away. How fair is that? Would you like to work for over 20 years and have your retirement stolen? I don't think so!!!

@teacher

February 9, 2015, 12:31pm (report abuse)

First off you are stating a bald-faced lie when you say all your benefits were taken. That is not true. You seem to think that you can simply say something and everybody should believe it. That probably worked in your classroom but it won't work in the real world.

Why don't you go read how the WEP works and then come back.

You want to be paid as if you contributed for your entire career when you didn't. Too bad for you the folks who understand the system won't let you steal from the rest of us.

Another Teacher

February 9, 2015, 12:51pm (report abuse)

I too am a retired teacher who has an offset to my social security because of my teacher retirement.

I still receive a social security benefit, just less than someone who worked their career in social security covered employment. My reduction is small because I worked more than 20 years under social security before becoming a teacher. For every year over 20 that my earnings reached a certain level under social security the reduction was less, up to 30 years when there is no reduction at all.

It is ludicrous that educated people, like teachers, are unaware of the WEP. It is ridiculous for these people to expect the same benefit as someone who paid social security for their entire career. After all, teacher retirements plans may not make you rich but they are very generous. I receive one half of the average of my highest three years monthly salary as a retirement benefit each month for the rest of my life. This amount is a great deal more than I would ever receive from social security.

***

February 14, 2015, 9:05am (report abuse)

Hey teacher, there's the proof, provided by one of your own.

So either you are an out-and-out liar or you are just plain stupid. Either way it looks like you are just another "GIMME GIMME GIMME" whiner out to screw everyone who actually paid their fair share.

Dally the teacher

March 7, 2015, 3:21pm (report abuse)

Sounds like the same old whine from the scammers and scumbags.

"GIMME GIMME GIMME"

It's time to cut off all welfare for blacks and elect a man like Hitler. He knew how to handle you gimme gimme bastards.

We should also get rid of all the homosexuals.

I vote no.

Another Teacher I Am To

March 7, 2015, 3:30pm (report abuse)

I am to a retired teecher who has an offset of my social securty because of my teacher retirement. It is loodikrus that educatd peoples, like me ecpect the same benefit as you alls do.

Go out and get edcated than come back and tells me that. MOOCHERS!

I vote no to. I got m,ine so too hell with the gimme gimme.

Vote no. Be SMART!!!!!!

N Welch

March 10, 2015, 12:56pm (report abuse)

I believe that all people that have paid into Social Security should be able to draw from it. Veterans and other private IRA's can draw Social Security benefits without penalty so why should Public Services workers be penalized? Many of the people that are being penalized by this have paid into Social Security as well as Government retirement. That to me is the same as putting money into an IRA and being told that you can not draw both.

@N WELCH

March 11, 2015, 12:25pm (report abuse)

The reason veterans and those with private IRA's can draw their social security benefit is because they pay into the social security trust fund based on their incomes. Those who do not pay for their entire career, such as some teachers in some states, would gain an unfair benefit if the WEP was not applied.

The WEP serves a valid purpose in preventing the payment of more than is appropriate for those affected.

It would behoove all you whiners who don't really understand how the whole thing works to become better educated before making foolosh statements.

Dally

March 11, 2015, 12:34pm (report abuse)

Just so it is clear - the WEP does not keep those who paid social security taxes from drawing a benefit. The WEP is applied to those who also worked in a job where they did not pay social security taxes and are drawing a retirement benefit based on that employment. The WEP only affects a part of the benefit, not the entire benefit.

There are those who say that the WEP will keep a person from drawing any social security benefit. That is untrue but it is often used as a scare tactic by those who are trying to gain an unfair benefit by pushing this legislation.

The WEP is a fair mechanism for keeping a certain group of individuals who did not pay social security taxes for their entire career from receiving more than they deserve.

Robert II

March 14, 2015, 2:00pm (report abuse)

First, WEP takes a portion of your Social Security because you are retired from a state run retirement system. I paid into that system for 40 years at about 7% of every dollar I made. Some states paid it all, mine does not. Because I was making so much money teaching I want to make even more so I painted houses, built homes, and became an electrician to fill in all those hours that some people sleep in to support my family. I was honest and claimed all the money under self-employment tax and paid my social security tax. I paid my social security tax because teacher retirement is not the greatest. Getting near retirement age I find out about WEP and what they would take from me. I should have not claimed a red cent on my taxes and invested that money. That would have given me total control over that money and not given it to *** that thinks they deserve it. This is not a gimme. This about being fair.

@Robert II

March 15, 2015, 11:44pm (report abuse)

I suggest you explore the WEP carefully. The amount of reduction you may face can be lessened if your social security earnings for those second jobs was sufficiently high to meet the "significant earnings" test.

I'm surprised at the low amount you paid to your teacher retirement. In my state we pay 14 percent of our salary each and every month to our retirement system and our school system matches it. In return we receive 2.5 percent of our high three average monthly salary for each year we are covered. In my case I receive 75% of my high three and, because I also worked outside teaching and paid social security on those wages plus my 20 years in the military, I only face a small offset for the WEP.

I believe the WEP is a fair mechanism for making sure some individualls are not given more of a social security benefit than is appropriate.

Retired

March 19, 2015, 5:18pm (report abuse)

Look so many young people now don't work,they just get on one of the gov. Free programs like welfare bang out kids for more money,when welfare ends they are good at gaming the gov. Programs like ssi and Never pay taxes. I worked my entire life 21 in private sector paying social security taxes, and the next 24 for the state of maine and taxes for a state pension. My social security statement says i am entitled to 1100.00 a month retirement but because of wep i lose 2/3rds of it.. how is that fair..ITS NOT

@Retired

March 19, 2015, 10:36pm (report abuse)

You and anyone who understands the WEP knows you are telling a bald-faced lie. The WEP did not take 2/3rds of your social security. If you were smart enought o read and understand the process you would know the maximum it can take is 60 percent of the first bend point. Your benefit is well above the first bend point so it is impossible for it to take 2/3rds.

Take your lies and whines and go somewhere else. Maybe you will find someone who is willing to believe your BS.

@Retired

March 19, 2015, 10:39pm (report abuse)

And by the way you certainly get a good check from the state for all those years you didn't pay social security taxes. So quit whining like you got stuck. You got just what you deserved, nothing more.

The WEP is fair. It keeps those who do not deserve it from gaining a larger benefit than they should.

IAN C

March 28, 2015, 1:03pm (report abuse)

I worked 33 years as ATC. YES, I am getting Civil Service retirement benefit but I also worked under SS before and during Govt employment. Why shouldn't I get my full SS benefits that I am eligible for based on SS earnings. You don't see any Ford or GM or GE employees complaining about their SS benefits being reduced because of their employer provided retirement benefits. That's because they get the full SS benefit, why aren't their employer pension benefits used to calculate an WEP reduction to their retirement payments?

@IAN C

March 29, 2015, 12:57am (report abuse)

Sorry but those folks you are talking about paid social security taxes on their income. You didn't.

It is always amazing to read just how stupid some people can be when they figure out they can't screw the rest of us out of something they want.

The WEP works just like it is supposed to work. It keeps those who didn't pay their full share from profiting off of the rest of us.

Lucy

April 24, 2015, 8:46pm (report abuse)

My husband paid into Social Security for 46 years and I don't receive a dime of that for Widows Benefits because I was a secretary with a low paying job. How is thatfair?

@Lucy

May 4, 2015, 11:55pm (report abuse)

Because YOU didn't pay anything. Too bad for you - great for the rest of us who did pay.

The fact that you were "a secretary with a low paying job" isn't our problem. Perhaps if you had been a more productive member of society you might have something to show for it.

supporter of bill

May 7, 2015, 7:04pm (report abuse)

It is rare these days that a person works for 1 employer their entire adult life. That being the case, I think a person should be able to collect his or her full retirement benefit from each employer they worked for. They invested their time and their money into each company or government's retirement plan at the same rate as other employees during their time with that employer. If you worked for 1 company for 40 years, great, you get a full pension from them. But if you worked for 3 different companies to make up those 40 years, that person should be able to collect their full, but smaller, retirement benefits from each of those 3 companies in hopes that between the 3 of them, they have enough to retire on. WEP is not fair for government employees and teachers.

***

May 8, 2015, 8:47pm (report abuse)

The WEP is fair. It keeps those who did not pay into social security for their entire career and who do not deserve more from gaining a larger benefit than they should.

Eleanor

May 9, 2015, 2:57pm (report abuse)

Noticeable is a repeated refrain in these comments: "WEP is fair and whining scumbags want something for nothing," and many of these comments seem to be submitted by the same person. The refrain is far from truth. Fourteen states are affected by WEP. In those states, not all school districts are affected. Widowed retired teachers, unless they retired when the loophole was in effect, lose their spousal benefits. The spouse did pay into Social Security for many years. However, WEP does not deal with spousal benefits. GPO does, making the spousal benefit a non-issue here. Many teachers do work at two jobs during their career and do pay into SS. When they retire, they do get Medicare, but only a fraction of their earned SS benefits and no spousal benefits. The benefits they lose go back into the SS system and benefit even those who call them whining scumbags who want something for nothing.

@Eleanor

May 9, 2015, 3:57pm (report abuse)

Your complaint about spousal benefits has nothing to do with the WEP. Your concern is the GPO.

If you bothered to learn about how social security benefits are calculated you might then better understand. But you, like so many other of the "ME ME ME" whiners, can't be bothered. If, as you say, "many teachers do work at two jobs during their career and do pay into SS." then the possibility exists that the effect will be reduced. Or perhaps this is just another mendacity spread by teachers and the like. After all, to hear teachers tell it, they are so overworked it is difficult to believe they actually have the strength to hold any sort of second job.

The WEP is fair. It keeps those who did not pay in to the trust fund for their entire careers from gaining an undue benefit.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 10, 2015, 6:57am (report abuse)

You misread my sentence about WEP/GPO in your haste to pounce, I actually stated that spousal benefits are not addressed by WEP and is a non-issue. You illogically called that statement of fact a complaint. You do have a superficial knowledge of SS and WEP; however, your arguments are biased, and you repeatedly depend on mudslinging to make your point. Many teachers have a second job because they want to earn SS quarters in order to get Medicare.

What you do not comprehend is HR 711. HR 711 allows teachers, policemen, firemen, and other government workers affected by WEP to draw a higher percentage of their earned benefits than they do now. The bill does not give them a free ride. Presently, they lose far too much of their earned SS benefits. The money they lose goes back into the system to support even the mudslingers. They will still lose part of their benefits even if the bill passes. Enjoy! Someday you will benefit from their loss.

webmaster

(logged-in user) May 10, 2015, 3:06pm (report abuse)

Don't like another's comments?

Logged-in users can hide the comments of others. When you do, all future comments from the same person disappear, too. Read about it here:

http://tinyurl.com/TurnYourBack

When you use a petition page for discussion, it's only available to people who have joined you in support of the petition. Create a petition here:

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/petitions/create/

Never respond to rude comments. That only encourages the "trolls" who post them.

http://tinyurl.com/DNFTTonWaWa

Dally

May 11, 2015, 12:01am (report abuse)

Sounds like the same old whine from the scammers and scumbags.

"GIMME GIMME GIMME"

@Eleanor

May 11, 2015, 12:09am (report abuse)

Have you actually read how the first bend point is calculated? If you have then you should be able to comprehend why the WEP was put in place. If you have not then it would behoove you to learn a bit more before you make comments about "superficial knowledge" of anything.

The WEP is a fair mechanism to prevent those who did not pay in to the trust fund for their entire careers from gaining a higher benefit than they deserve. The reduction only applies to the first bend point and has no effect thereafter. Those who claim the reduction is unfair do not talk about the retirement benefit they receive from their non-covered employment. They don't want anyone to know they are attempting to double-dip and screw the system.

Regardless of the whines and whimpers of those who seek to gain more than they deserve this bill has no chance of passing. It has been introduced for several sessions of Congress and always fails to move out of committee, as is only right and proper.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 11, 2015, 4:09pm (report abuse)

In 1983 WEP was signed into law. Legislators hoping to shore up Social Security thought public servants retiring from a job not requiring them to pay SS taxes plus a job that did require them to pay SS taxes profited from windfall. WEP reclaims a large portion of their earned SS benefits. Check <www.federalretirement.net/wep.htm> to see how it affects workers. Charts and calculators will guide you.

Sen. Brady (R-TX), author of HR 711, wants a fairer formula than WEP has. HR 711 does not help retirees regain all lost earnings, but does allow them to retain a larger portion of their own earnings than they retain now. These retirees do not want any benefits but their own. Retired public servants who did not pay SS taxes are not the ones demanding repeal of WEP. They do not want your benefits, either. The self-appointed pouncer with the same superficial, sarcastic and insulting refrain would have you think otherwise.

The pouncer benefits from other people's lost earnings.

***

May 11, 2015, 6:17pm (report abuse)

Eleanor would have all of us believe she doesn't want more than she deserves. That is nothing less than BS. She doesn't tell you about the nice retirement check received every month nor about the social security taxes not paid all those years. All she wants is to get more than she deserves out of the trust fund.

This bill would give these individuals credit for their non-covered employment, for which they paid no social security taxes, when calculating their benefit. Someone please explain to all of us just how that is fair.

The WEP is fair and does what it was designed to do - keep scammers and schemers from gaining a larger benefit than they deserve.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 12, 2015, 12:31am (report abuse)

As a self appointed monitor of this site, you pretend to be all knowing and comprehend very little. You have not read HR 711 thoroughly, yet this forum is for the discussion of that bill. You make quantum leaps in logic and land in the wrong places. You do not know me, and you do not know that I am a retired pensioner with a fat check. You do not know whether I paid SS taxes, so do not you pretend you know.

The irony is you are the taker because you benefit from retired public servants who must surrender a large portion of their very own earned SS benefits and berate and belittle anyone who argues against that practice. Apparently, you enjoy having your hands in your benefactors' pockets.

Dally

May 12, 2015, 10:17am (report abuse)

Eleanor, how do you know the pserson you call "pouncer" is benefitting? Do you somehow know this person? Or are you actually the same person arguing with yourself? I am starting to believe that is what is happening here. You just want to pound on the keys so you actually post as more than one individual. Strange person you are.

I still think the whole thing with this bill is just a rip-off for a group who want more, more, more.

Sounds like the same old whine from the scammers and scumbags.

"GIMME GIMME GIMME"

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 12, 2015, 4:35pm (report abuse)

The benefactors of the earnings surrendered by public servants go back into the SS system and benefit all other recipients. People who are name calling our public servants are the beneficiaries, since they are or will be drawing from a SS fund enriched by others’ lost earnings and would not be name calling themselves. Name callers appeal to people’s fears and prejudices, but present a weak, sarcastic, repetitive argument not based on logic.

HR 711 opponents refuse to recognize the intent of the bill. Senator Brady's bill HR 711 addresses the public servants who did pay SS taxes when they were employed in SS taxed positions in addition to their non-SS taxed jobs and helps them regain some of their lost earnings. WEP hits some states harder than others. That is why some people are not affected as much as others, regardless of where they are on the SS substantial earnings chart, and you get a wide range of answers on a forum. Others lose a significant

amount of earned benefits.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 12, 2015, 4:37pm (report abuse)

The benefactors gain by the earnings surrendered by public servants that go back into the SS system. People who are name calling our public servants are the beneficiaries, since they are or will be drawing from a SS fund enriched by others’ lost earnings and would not be name calling themselves. Name callers appeal to people’s fears and prejudices, but present a weak, sarcastic, repetitive argument not based on logic.

HR 711 opponents refuse to recognize the intent of the bill. Senator Brady's bill HR 711 addresses the public servants who did pay SS taxes when they were employed in SS taxed positions in addition to their non-SS taxed jobs and helps them regain some of their lost earnings. WEP hits some states harder than others. That is why some people are not affected as much as others, regardless of where they are on the SS substantial earnings chart, and you get a wide range of answers on a forum. Others lose a significant

amount of earned benefits.

***

May 12, 2015, 6:52pm (report abuse)

Eleanor refuses to recognize the WEP is a fair and proper remedy for what was an egregious rip-off by those who so-called "public servants" she so loudly supports.

The claim that these people "lose" benefits is nothing more than smoke and bluff. They did not earn the benefits so they could not lose them.

As to the complaint about the WEP hitting some states harder - the reason the impact of the WEP is lower or absent in some states is because those states require their employees to pay social security taxes. For instance, in Missouri teachers don't pay social security taxes but do pay in to the retirement system. They are correctly affected by the WEP if they have other social security covered employment. In the same school districts non-teacher employees pay social security taxes AND contribute to the retirement system. They are not affected regardless of how much other covered employment they have because they are contributing to the social security trust fund. That is fair

***

May 12, 2015, 6:58pm (report abuse)

Regardless of what Eleanor would have you believe, those who receive a benefit from non social security covered employment would enjoy an unfair advantage under this bill, or any other bill that reduces the WEP provision.

The idea that any one who receives a social security benefit gains from any forfeiture by others is ridiculous. The benefit formula does not take into account how much money is in the trust fund.

Eleanor and her ilk are nothing more than scammers and schemers attempting to gain a benefit they do not deserve.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 12, 2015, 7:50pm (report abuse)

HR 711 uses a fairer formula to calculate benefits, and

WEP has been controversial from the start. You miss the point. Money has to go somewhere. If it goes into the system, then it is a part of the benefit pool that benefits all others. SS earns money through taxation.

You have still not read HR 711. Sen. Brady's idea is to promote

fair and equal treatment for public employees. What they get is based

on their own earned benefits. HR 711 will benefit those who have worked both SS taxed and SS non-taxed jobs.

Again, you depend on name calling, indicative of weak argument; and you provide no hard evidence to back up your points. You cannot carry on a logical debate when you argue ad hominem. Your focus is

on the person, not the topic. You draw hasty conclusions. You do not know that I am a public servant. However, I do respect policemen, postal workers, teachers, firemen, and other public servants.

Anyone who draws from their lost earnings a taker.

Dally

May 13, 2015, 12:37am (report abuse)

I'll say one thing about Eleanor, she sure likes to argue with herself. So far she has posted seven times in three days as "Eleanor" and five times as the other person. Sounds like she has little else to do with her life so she picks out something and argues both sides in order to draw attention to herself.

In point of fact it sounds a little like a poster named Josh Taylor who was around here a while back. Tried to make everyone believe he was a preacher but I seem to remember it turned out he was a 13 year old boy living in his mother's basement and using her computer without her permission. Perhaps Eleanor is actually Josh, now a couple years older but no wiser.

Strange people pop up here pretty regularly.

@Eleanor

May 13, 2015, 10:36am (report abuse)

I suppose it depends on how the word "fair" is defined.

If it means give more money to those who did not pay on all their earnings, then this bill would have a solid standing.

If it means to make sure those who did not pay on all their earnings do not get more than they should, then the current WEP is correct.

From the perspective of those who are footing the bill by paying taxes on all their earnings it seems this bill is not fair and should not be passed. That has obviously been the feeling for years now, since bills similar to this have never been given consideration past the committee stage. If their was popular support for change the voters would have spoken out about it. They have not.

The WEP provides protection for those who actually supported the social security system throughout their working years. It prevents an unfair advantage for those who did not support the system.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 13, 2015, 12:55pm (report abuse)

You missed the point. HR 711 gives more, but not all, of the lost earnings back to workers who held two types of jobs; a job taxed by SS and a job not taxed by SS. The long term forecast by the Reagan administration was that SS would face difficulties if additional funding was not found. Funding was increased with our firefighters', policemen's and teachers' earnings, plus that of government medical workers, and other government workers. People who worked second and third jobs used to be able to collect their earnings. Key words: Their earnings, not others' earnings. During the Carter administration, WEP was enacted. WEP has always been controversial. Frankly, I support our government workers. SS added insult to injury when GPO was enacted. SS then could take widowed spouses' spousal support, although the spouse had paid SS taxes his or her entire career. Our elderly retired public servants have given enough to the rest of us. They deserve a break.

Dally

May 13, 2015, 1:05pm (report abuse)

And there she is again ladys and gentlemen,arguing with herself. Must be a strange life she lives to seek attention is this wierd way.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 13, 2015, 4:52pm (report abuse)

Dally, I started posting because I could not believe the abusive way supporters of this bill are treated. I will answer posts directed to or at me.

Teachers, policemen, firefighters, certain medical workers in government positions, and other government workers were being called whiners, scumbags, and other horrible names. Retirees on SS are elderly and have held positions in life that deserve our respect.

I also know some of the senators who sponsor HR 711, and even attend the church with one of them and have worked as a volunteer with his wife. These men are not out to bilk anyone with that bill.

This is a political web site, and writers should know how to treat opponents of their arguments. I write as one person under the same name, but you are unable to discern a writer's voice and style. Do not compare me with you or anyone else who ignores rules of common courtesy and makes errors in logic.

@Eleanor

May 13, 2015, 7:03pm (report abuse)

No, you fail to understand how others feel about this. You call it controversial. It may be, but only to those who are affected by the WEP, not allowing them to gain an unfair benefit.

If it was of such great importance to society it would have been changed long ago.

Roy S

May 13, 2015, 7:32pm (report abuse)

Eleanor, as someone who receives a Social Security benefit each month I am personally offended by your comments. I find your attempts to transfer suspicion onto those who receive a full Social Security benefit specious at best. It certainly appears to be an attempt on your part to throw the mantle of suspicion on others, rather than, as you claim, to engage in a discussion of the bill.

It is also rather disingenuous of you to attempt to raise your own stature by some thin association with senators, especially under the veil of religious association.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 13, 2015, 7:38pm (report abuse)

I do understand. When someone has been accustomed to expecting to benefit from others' lost earnings, change is difficult. When propagandists appeal to prejudices, it affects some people's thought processes. The government works slowly. Think how long it took them to allow women to vote!

The representatives and senators I have worked with state that WEP was controversial from the start. By January of last year 108 US Representatives had signed onto the bill HR 1795. The US Senate had companion bill in 2013, S 893, and Social Security Fairness Act of 2013 was the name of the bill in both House and Senate. So was refiled. Both of my US Senators held out. One of them told me he had to think of the Baby Boomers. Of course, he is a Baby Boomer. This year may be different. One of them is softening. My US representative finally signed on last year and this year. I asked my State Senator to encourage him to do so, and she did followed through.

***

May 13, 2015, 7:41pm (report abuse)

Facts

Until the Windfall Elimination Provision was enacted in 1983, people whose primary job wasn’t covered by social security had their social security benefits calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers. They had the advantage of receiving a social security benefit representing a higher percentage of their earnings, plus a pension from a job for which they didn’t pay social security taxes.

Under the WEP no one loses their whole social security benefit. The WEP only affects the first calculation of the benefit and even then only partially reduces the benefit.

Those who entered federal service on or after January 1, 1987 are not affected. On that date the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) went into effect. This system is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). With this system the WEP becomes moot for federal service employees.

***

May 13, 2015, 7:41pm (report abuse)

Many state government employees are not affected by the WEP because their systems, similar to FERS, include social security as a part of their retirement package.

Public retirement systems are quite generous in most cases and those who are affected by the WEP are by no means left out in the cold. Many state systems pay a minimum of two and one-half of the final salary for each year of service. That can provide 75 percent or more of the individual's salary as a retirement benefit each and every month.

Those who are in contributory state systems do not pay income taxes on their contributions until they retire and even then at lower rates.

In many cases those who are in state retirement systems do not pay state income taxes on their retirement benefits.

@Eleanor

May 13, 2015, 7:44pm (report abuse)

Please show us just how someone who receives a social security benefit can "benefit from others' lost earnings". And please make it something that can be backed up with facts and not your BS smoke and mirrors.

***

May 13, 2015, 7:45pm (report abuse)

THE WEP IS FAIR!

It keeps a bunch of no-paying individuals from getting a bigger benefit than they deserve. These same individuals are the ones whining because they are not allowed to rip the rest of us off for something they don't deserve.

Dally

May 13, 2015, 7:49pm (report abuse)

Josh, is that you? I swear it sure sounds like you. I'll still bet a case of cold beverages against a glass of water that Eleanor and her antagonist are the same person.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 13, 2015, 7:54pm (report abuse)

To the one who receives SS monthly, it is not your fault that WEP was passed. The lost earnings of others, however, is a fact. To the one who objects to church, you have that right. To those who object to my work with senators and representatives, why don't you try working with them? Call or email them with your concerns. The US Capitol, Senate and House: 1.866.327.8670. Google your state reps and senators and get their contact information. Get elected or appointed to boards. That's a sure way to get requests to contact legislators. It's the American way. Not all countries have that privilege.

Roy S

May 13, 2015, 11:27pm (report abuse)

Eleanor, you seem to have a problem with comprehension.

I don't object to religion. I do object to anyone trying to use their religion to cloak themselves in some kind of respectability.

I also object to your attempt to make yourself look like some sort of authority because you know a legislator or two. That smacks somehow of the attention seeking one of the other posters alluded to above.

My biggest problem with your comments is that what you accuse others of doing is exactly what you are doing. You still seem to be saying that those of us who are receiving a benefit from social security are doing so on the backs of those affected by the WEP. That is not true and you know it. My benefit is based solely on my earnings and has nothing to do with what happens to anyone else.

And then you seem to be attempting to cover yourself with some sort of patriotic shield with your talk about the American way. I do not need and will not tolerate a lecture from you about the American way.

Eleanor

(logged-in user) May 14, 2015, 10:47am (report abuse)

Why don't you become active with your legislators? You only need to know a few: State rep and senator and US rep and two US senators. Since you are retired, you have the time to do so and could be effective. You are articulate, and your participation would be welcomed. Non-partisan groups are most effective. Your former place of employment may have a group. AARP certainly does.

True, your benefit is based on your earnings. However, SS was shored up by WEP, which calls for the surrender of earnings.

By the way, the American way is not a shield. As you know, it gives us the opportunity to speak up for what we believe in without fear of punishment, imprisonment, or execution by the government, as long as our speaking up does not threaten the well being and rights of others or their lives as extremists do.

Deano

(logged-in user) May 14, 2015, 1:14pm (report abuse)

Just what is it with this broad. She accuses others of making assumptions and then she goes off and does the same thing. How do you know Roy S isn't involved? You just assume that anyone who is opposed to your ideas MUST be wrong.

By the way lady the "American way" is not something you get to wave around just because it hides your DA ideas. Those of us who actually put ourselves out there for this country have no respect for you leeches. And I know you aren't part of the group who did anything for this country. In your own words you are a TAKER not a giver.

Get a life and act like someone who has at least a little common sense.

***

May 14, 2015, 2:48pm (report abuse)

THE WEP IS FAIR!

It keeps a bunch of no-paying individuals from getting a bigger benefit than they deserve. These same individuals are the ones whining because they are not allowed to rip the rest of us off for something they don't deserve.

The WEP is Fair

June 14, 2015, 11:49am (report abuse)

You no good leeching pigs always asking for money like the blacks and the whiners and the cripples and wounded vets. They don't deserve anything and should have all their benefits cuts. Deano is right!

mjg

(logged-in user) June 19, 2015, 3:57pm (report abuse)

husband paid into social security for 46 yrs. but I receive a small pension and am not eligible to receive a dime of his widows benefits. I also paid 10 yrs in social security but it was cut by 2/3rds. In 35 other states I would receive widows benefits. What's Ill. doing with elderly peoples money?

@mjg

June 19, 2015, 9:11pm (report abuse)

Illinois is not keeping anything from you. You are apparently receiving a retirement based on non-social security covered employment. The current law requires an offset in any social security benefit you might be eligible for. Too bad but that is how it is currently.

Draino (logged-in user)

June 22, 2015, 6:11pm (report abuse)

The "American way" is something to wave around like the Confederate Flag! The WEP should not be repealed because poor people deserve to be poor and I can laugh at them. Ha ha ha! You people should all have your Social Security taken away from you. Ha ha ha! I got mine! Too bad for you losers!

Daily the Dip

June 24, 2015, 2:00am (report abuse)

Josh is that you? The WEP is fair because I said so. Josh? Josh, where are you? I hate poor people and vets. Josh? Josh? Eleanor are you Josh? Poor people should all go broke and die. Josh? Josh?

Draino (logged-in user)

June 24, 2015, 12:59pm (report abuse)

Yeah!!!!! I voted and I voted and I voted and I voted. Now we have 83% Against the bill on this site. Yeah!!!! I did it!!!! Take that you slobby losers, you stupid vets, you disgusting coloreds and you invalids. I hope you all have to live on the street and die! 83% Against!!!! I did it!!!! This bill will never pass!!!! Yeah!!!!!

Judyw46

July 22, 2015, 11:08am (report abuse)

I am a retired teacher who worked for a school district who DID pay into SS for 27 years. I left the district to become a principal in a district that did not include SS. After 3 yrs, my husband became terminally ill, so I went ahead and retired. Since I did not retire from my former district where I had paid SS, I was rejected my husband's benefits. I was told you have to work at a SS paying district for the last 5 years before retirement no matter how many years you pay into SS previously. How is this fair?? I lost ALL of his benefits, and mine were cut to $500 because of WEP. I paid much more than that each month out of my meager teacher's check for 27 years! I am NOT WHINNING as someone put it. I just want what is fairly due me from SS!

Driano

July 22, 2015, 11:00pm (report abuse)

"I just want what is fairly due me from SS!"

And that is exactly what you will get. You also forgot to mention that teacher retirement check you get every month in your WHINE.

SAME OLD WHINE!!!

GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!

TOO BAD!!!

SO SAD!!!

Peggy Cox

July 23, 2015, 2:33pm (report abuse)

I paid in the full amount of SS and therefore I am required to draw on my own. But because I now get a state pension I am penalized by getting a reduction in my SS. Others get state pension and never paid in any SS. BUT they can draw off spouse and get 100 percent SS. While others never paid in SS but went to a school district like Coleman Texas and worked a few days and retired in Coleman. They now draw 100percent SS plus their state retirement. There are fourteen states that penalize state employees. Texas is one of those states. Now tell me what is fair about it.

@Peggy Cox

July 24, 2015, 9:28am (report abuse)

Sounds like you need to be talking to the state legislature. Don't whine to those of us who will have to support your backside just because you think you should get more than your fair share.

And if you actually "paid in the full amount of SS" what is the problem? There is no offset for those who paid 30 years of social security.

It really sounds like either you are totally confused or just an ouut-and-out liar. Either way you don't deserve any more than you get.

TOO BAD!

P.A.

July 24, 2015, 10:21am (report abuse)

If you live in one of the 14 states even if you have paid in all quarters of SS if you draw a state pension, you will get a reduction in your SS. If you don't know what you are talking about then just keep your mouth closed. Pass HR 711.

@P.A.

July 24, 2015, 7:15pm (report abuse)

You should really be better informed before you open your sewer pipe. IF you knew anything about the WEP you would know that claiming "paid in the full amount of SS" means they paid for 30 or more years. That menas there is NO offset. So get your head out of the lower end of your alimentary canal and learn something. Otherwise just P.O.!

TOO BAD!!!

SO SAD!!!

You don't get to screw the rest of us!!!

Dally

July 24, 2015, 7:22pm (report abuse)

Same old whine from the scammers and scumbags.

"GIMME GIMME GIMME"

Ap

July 27, 2015, 3:31pm (report abuse)

That idiot doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Once again if you get a state pension and have paid in all your quarters to SS, you will get a reduction in SS if you live in one of the fourteen states that penalizes you for also receiving a state pension. Don't believe that idiot. He should shut his mouth. He is probably a troll.

@Ap

July 28, 2015, 12:46am (report abuse)

If you had a brain you would take it out and play with it.

I really suggest you read up on how it works before making a further fool of yourself.

For instance, do you realize that in those states where there is no WEP offset because of state pension that the employees have a combined retirement system? That means, you idiot, that they pay social security taxes on their income. Because of that they do not fall under the WEP. I'm sure that information won't make any difference to you because you are such a dumb$hit that nothing can penetrate your skull.

THE WEP IS FAIR. It keeps those who did not pay from gaining a greater benefit than they deserve.

Ap

July 28, 2015, 5:27pm (report abuse)

You ARE the IDIOT. WE ONLY WANT WHAT WE PAUD PAID IN. .A FAIR DEAL. YOU ARE THE SCUMBAG.......YOUR LANGUAGE CONFIRMS YOUR CHARACTER. GO DRINK SOME KOOLAID AND DONT LET IT BOTHER YOU SO MUCH. YOU ARE GETTING WAY TO STRESSED OUT. RELAX

@Ap

July 28, 2015, 11:27pm (report abuse)

Funny, you must be the one stressed out since you are doing all the yelling.

Me, I know you and yours are just a bunch of worthless scumbags who want someone else to pay your way.

THE WEP IS FAIR. It keeps scumbags like you from getting something you don't deserve.

Joseph R2

August 4, 2015, 9:29am (report abuse)

HR711 gives certain retired public servants what they deserve from SS nothing more and nothing less. I am a retired firefighter who has paid into

SS for thirty years and I only want what other people who did the same get

@Joseph R2

August 5, 2015, 1:03am (report abuse)

This is a clear example of how the WEP is either not understood or of someone making an out-and-out untruthful statement.

Under the WEP, if you paid social security taxes on substantial wages for 30 years, you are exempt from the WEP.

Now in Joseph's case he claims to have paid in for 30 years. He also demands that everyone get what they deserve. That is the whole reason for the WEP in the first place - to make sure you get what you deserve and not one bit more.

If Joseph actually has the required 30 years, which appears doubtful, he would not even be here because his benefit would not be affected.

SAME OLD WHINE!!!

GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!

TOO BAD!!!

SO SAD!!!

Joseph R2

August 8, 2015, 12:37am (report abuse)

SAME OLD WHINE!!!

GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!

TOO BAD!!!

SO SAD!!!

I think all the vets and LGBTs and people of color should not get any social security. We should take all the old people off of social security too. Let the b@st@rds got broke and die!!!

@Joseph R2-D2

August 8, 2015, 12:40am (report abuse)

I posted the above comment not Joseph R2.

I hate old people and think we should keep all their social security payments.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I'm nutz!!!

Dally

August 18, 2015, 12:00am (report abuse)

Same old whine from the scammers and scumbags.

"GIMME GIMME GIMME"

LOS ANGELES POLICEMAN

August 25, 2015, 10:56am (report abuse)

I have paid into social security for over 20 years, why should I be punished because I worked another job for the city of Los Angeles and paid into that pension system also, the Windfall Profit is not fair.

Marty Kandl

August 26, 2015, 12:27am (report abuse)

You are a loser and you know it. A Los Angeles policeman crying about what is fair? That is a laugh. All of you are a bunch of thugs who should be locked up.

johnl

August 26, 2015, 10:57pm (report abuse)

Well I did my military time after wgich I worked full time state job. For almost all thoae years workinf for the atate, I maintained a second job and continue to work paying Social Security. The WEP eliminates any SS benefit. Explain to me exactly how it's fair that I paid and receive nothing, nada, zilch?

Page 1 of 4: « First/Oldest | ‹ Previous | Next › | Last/Newest »

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)