H.R. 973, The Social Security Fairness Act of 2015 (46 comments ↓)

H.R. 973 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.

(

Who Sponsored and Cosponsored This Bill?

(show list ↓)

To What Comittee was this Bill Referred?

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill


February 23, 2015, 12:44am (report abuse)

There is nothing wrong with the WEP. It keeps those who did not pay in for their entire employment from receiving more than they deserve.

You get what you deserve - not one penny more. And that's how it should be.

To bad for you that you can't figure out a way to screw the rest of us out of something you don't deserve.


February 23, 2015, 12:50am (report abuse)

This whine just keeps coming back year after year. All you scammers who did not pay in for your entire working career will not be able convince those who make the rules that you deserve more.

Instead of crying about "MORE MORE MORE" why don't you educate yourselves on how the benefit is actually computed and than perhaps you will understand. I doubt it but you just might then see why the WEP is fair.

Lynn Lindberg

February 23, 2015, 1:57pm (report abuse)

I don't think the waiving of the offset should ONLY apply to the actual person who worked 30+ years. It should also apply to a spouses survivor benefits, with no offset for Govt. pension. My father contributed to Soc. Security 30+ years. He was diagnosed with cancer at age 57, collected Soc. Security disability benefits for only 4 months before his death. I applied for survivor benefits for my Mom, who has Alzheimer’s, and learned she is not eligible for zero survivor benefits because of the offset against her Federal pension ($32K/yr. net) leaving her in a tough situation. Survivor benefits for a surviving spouse who worked & contributed should NOT be subject to the offsets. Parents’ who are the stay at home care giver when children, male or female, if they work, start their careers much later in life, hence less earnings and retirement. It feels punitive to the spouse and the surviving spouses to deny them survivor benefits because of these offset rules.


February 23, 2015, 3:32pm (report abuse)

I also don't feel the GPO is as fair as it could be. The one-for-one dollar offset seems far too harsh. I would favor the use of the 30 year significant earnings test for benefits when the GPO comes into play.


March 13, 2015, 10:26pm (report abuse)

Well, yes, there IS something wrong with the WEP. I paid into SS for over 8 years before I became CSRS. After retiring from CSRS after 31 years, I am again paying into SS with a part time job. I worked for 8 years + and feel I am entitled to the full SS based on those 8 years. Why should it be reduced to less than half because I was CSRS?


March 14, 2015, 11:23am (report abuse)

The GPO/WEP was created to bail out social security. Did it help? Not really. So repealing it should not make any difference either.

I retired from CSRS after 28 years of civil service. PLUS I paid into Social Security for over 30 years because I was in the Army Reserves for 25 years and worked several civilian jobs. At one time, I was working four jobs to support myself and my children as a single parent. I will only get 40% of my EARNED social security benefit because some of the years I worked were not "substantial earnings".

The number of CSRS retirees is dwindling every single day. Eventually it will have negligible impact on the social security system.

If we paid in, we earned it!

Martin Novick

March 14, 2015, 2:53pm (report abuse)

I worked for 20 years paying SS and 26 years civil service. After 20 years of pay

It is not fear to cut my SS

@Martin Novick and judyf and PMak

March 21, 2015, 2:06am (report abuse)

Sure it is. If you had worked for all those years under social security you wouldn't be getting that fat civil service retirement check every month. Then you might deserve more.

The WEP is fair. It prevents those who did not pay in from getting more than they deserve.


March 21, 2015, 2:07am (report abuse)

Same old whine year after year.







(logged-in user) May 7, 2015, 8:34pm (report abuse)

I taught in a high-risk public high school for 15 years, under SS and then

I moved to another state, and taught in public school in a system for 20 years that did not pay into SS. I lose 60% of the SS I earned, so it means I PAY the government $1,000 a month for the privilege of having been of service. Those who serve in the military aren't penalized after they take other government jobs. I've lost about $33,000 since I retired in 2007. Considering the inequity of the tax system, the impact on my existence as a disabled senior hurts.


May 9, 2015, 9:06am (report abuse)

"Those who serve in the military aren't penalized after they take other government jobs."

First, that statement is not accurate. Anyone who has less than 30 years of significant earnings while in social security covered employment and subsequently draws a retirement from a non-covered period of employment, will see a reduction. That is fact and you would know that if you bothered to read the information available about the WEP.

Secondly, and more importantly, for you to attempt to equate your time as a teacher to military service is absolutely idiotic. Even your claim about teaching in a "high-risk" school is laughable.

The WEP is fair. It prevents those who did not pay in to social security for their entire period of employment from receiving more than they deserve. That is a good thing for those of us who actually paid and too bad for those who want to screw the system out of more than they deserve.


May 14, 2015, 11:20pm (report abuse)

Wow! Wish my "fat civil service retirement check" was as generous as you seem to think it is. Look, at least one quarter of my working years was spent at a job where I paid into SS. If, say for instance, SS says I've earned enough to collect $400 at age 62, then why should that amount be cut down 60% simply because of a CSRS annuity?? I'm not asking for anything that I didn't earn and pay into.

Perhaps you should see my big fat check amount before you make such a comment. I won't be lavishing on a tropical isle somewhere anytime too soon with it I can assure you.


May 16, 2015, 2:49pm (report abuse)

Oh bull$hit!

You don't want to admit you get more than you deserve and now you want even more.

If you know so much then you should already understand how the benefit is figured. Since you don't seem to understand the only conclusion is that you are stupid.

But then what should we expect from a fat-@ssed civil servant.


May 17, 2015, 10:31am (report abuse)

if that's the most intelligent reply to pmak's well made comments that you can come up with then you have just shown who the stupid one is.


May 18, 2015, 12:01am (report abuse)

Same old whine year after year.







May 18, 2015, 12:07am (report abuse)

This whine just keeps coming back year after year. All you scammers who did not pay in for your entire working career will not be able convince those who make the rules that you deserve more.

Instead of crying about "MORE MORE MORE" why don't you educate yourselves on how the benefit is actually computed and than perhaps you will understand. I doubt it but you just might then see why the WEP is fair.


June 19, 2015, 10:59am (report abuse)

My husband paid into social security for 46 years and I will not receive one dime of widows benefits because I receive a paltry state pension. I also paid into social security as well. What's fair about not receiving one dime of my husband's social security???? Please point this out to me.


June 19, 2015, 9:30pm (report abuse)

Illinois isn't keeping your money. Current law requires an offset to any benefit if you receive any form of retirement from non-social security covered employment. Too bad for you but that's the law. And why not, since you get a retirement check from employment you did not pay social security taxes on you should not be able to double or triple dip.


(logged-in user) June 20, 2015, 4:28pm (report abuse)

It's not the law in 35 other states. Why is it a law in Illinois especially if it is senior citizens who are penalized. Previously I paid into social security and the government cut that by 2/3rds and took away every dime of Widow's Benefits. I was double-screwed and instead of doubled=dipped.

Stay informed and read up on the Windfall Elimination Provision as well as the Government Offset Provision. It goes much deeper than people are aware. There is a reason why 35 other states allow senior citizens to receive fair distributions that they worked for.


June 20, 2015, 8:31pm (report abuse)

Perhaps you should take your own advice and actually read about the WEP and the GPO. These are bith federal statutes not Illinois state.

If you actually did any research instead of just spewing you would find that some states require their government employees to pay social security taxes while others do not. Those states who do not require it place their employees at the mercy of the WEP and the GPO. That is fair. Since you didn't pay into the social security trust fund on thoase state wages you should not gain the unfair advantage you would have without the WEP.

It's too bad you don't have a better understanding of the laws. All you do with your whine is prove your lack of credibility and make a fool of yourself.


(logged-in user) June 20, 2015, 10:04pm (report abuse)

I didn't realize that the 35 states had to pay social security taxes as well as their pension taxes. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I always wondered what the reason is. I am limited to research since I am confined to a wheelchair and don't get around much. But this all makes sense now. I still don't agree that my husbands 46 years of paying social security taxes should shut down my receiving widows benefits.


June 20, 2015, 11:25pm (report abuse)

I agree that you should be eligible for the survivor benefit from social security. I do not understand the reasoning behind it. That is known as the GPO and to my mind it should be rescinded.

I encourage you to contact your legislators and ask them to support repeal of the GPO. At least in that way you are making your feelings known to those who have the power to make changes.

I do support the WEP. I believe it is a fair way to keep some from gaining an unfair benefit from social security.


(logged-in user) June 21, 2015, 11:14am (report abuse)

Thanks for the advice.


July 9, 2015, 7:10pm (report abuse)

My husband paid into SS for 55 years, but since I worked for a University that did not participate in SS I am ineligible to receive widow benefits. Apparently, my paltry pension of less than $2000 a month is too high for me to qualify. How is that fair? Had I not worked at all I would be able to collect his SS. GPO needs to be repealed.


July 11, 2015, 2:10pm (report abuse)

So do you think you deserve to live off other's sweat? Sure sounds like it.

"my paltry pension of less than $2000 a month"

Now that sure is sad - take a guess how many are making it on less than that, and with a family.

Just another worthless whiner who wants everyone else to support them.

Tom S

July 22, 2015, 7:06am (report abuse)

This law has many flaws and in my opinion infringes our constitutional rights. One example: My wife has lived equally in both the UK and US and is a citizen of both countries. She has 22 years of SS credit and is eligible for a UK Gov. Pension. She will be penalized with a reduction of her SS Pension by 1 dollar for every 2 dollars of UK Pension. Why reduce a persons spendable income which is part of another countries revenue. Her spendable income being reduced effects the US economy negatively. Foreign money coming into the US is a plus for the economy, but the effect is nulled by WEP penalties as in this case. She has less money to spend because of WEP. If her entire working years was in the US alone there would be no reduction in her SS. WEP is smothering our economy and economic growth.

@Tom S

July 23, 2015, 1:44pm (report abuse)

Is the UK a party to the social security treaties? If they are the rules are set in those treaties and are not by the WEP.

But then again she is in fact getting paid for working under social security so what's the whine? Sounds like you are just upset because you can't get money you don't deserve.



September 2, 2015, 1:28pm (report abuse)

You imbeciles that are for the WEP are probably rich!! So you are against our military and local law enforcement from getting their entitlement of SS if they paid into it for years through other jobs??

My husband was disabled on the job as a police officer and receives a disability pension, which is low. He worked others jobs for 20 years paying into SS, but is not allowed to receive his benefit because of this law.

So you would like to continue sending tax payer money to other countries and not support the citizens of the US. YOU IMBECILES!!!!


(logged-in user) September 6, 2015, 12:07pm (report abuse)

Sharon2015 is an imbecile. Why? Because she obviously does not understand what is happening. There is no instance where the military retiree is affected by the WEP. Why? Because military members pay social security taxes on their income. For those unintelligent asshats, like Sharon2015, who think otherwise, get better informed before spewing your idiotic drivel. As to your husband, sounds like you are just trying to get a benefit he did not earn. That is why we have the WEP, to keep slugs like you from gouging the rest of us.

As to being rich, that is not likely. In my case I live on a total income of less than $2500 per month. And do just fine at that. Your attempt to cause some sort of class fight is just another of the things those with your loser mentality spout. If you were more productive and less of a loser you would have what you need. As it is you get what you deserve.


September 6, 2015, 8:51pm (report abuse)

Now that you brought it up, I would rather give money to someone outside the country who would make good use of it instead of giving it to someone who is just trying to get more than they should in this country.


October 20, 2015, 3:05pm (report abuse)

Same old whine year after year.






C S Heffernan

December 20, 2015, 11:41am (report abuse)

When a man takes money out of my pocket I call it stealing. Congress passed a bill taking my money saying it would provide for me in my old age. I have now retired and find that another bill was passed which eliminates 66% of the monthly payment Social Security is required to provide to me! Call it what you wish, I call it thievery! Eliminate WEP and return to the original agreement Congress made with the public when it passed the Social Security Act.

Penny Ann1

January 14, 2016, 5:06pm (report abuse)

I too worked in both private and public sectors. As to the "fairness"of us whiners wanting to collect our fair SS for years worked, remember we did PAY IN. Why should the fact that I later took a state government position reduce my SS? Those who retire from private sectors jobs with big golden parachute bonus' and hefty SS benefits don't whiine about the big pay outs. We should be treated the same way. No where do I see these "dual: retires asking for more than they are entitled too. We are just asking for our fair share!

Martin Kandl

January 18, 2016, 1:33am (report abuse)

Same old whine year after year.






Charlie j

March 28, 2016, 10:56pm (report abuse)

I earned my 40 quarters in SS . Military, civilian jobs and worked part time jobs which paid into SS. I had a State Goverment job for 26 yr. I did paid into SS through other jobs and dont think it fair to be penalized . I just want what I put in no more no less. I'm not crying Gimme Gimme . I put my life on the line everyday in Law Enforcement and other part time law Enforcement jobs. For you that disagree that I probably protected ,what up with that.

Tom Tuttle

March 29, 2016, 5:18am (report abuse)

The comments herein illustrate excellently the problem with income-redistribution schemes: they set people at each others' throats scrabbling over the crumbs which are offered in compensation for their significant contributions to society. The offsets were in response to Congress' criminal mismanagement of the Social Security "trust fund", which was never properly set up nor funded, but instead became a spending slush-fund for Congress to manipulate.

Now here we are, and honest, hard-working people are struggling with each other over who will receive how many crumbs from the crumbling system. How much better it would have been if the SS Ponzi scheme had never been sold to Americans as a retirement plan, and therefore Americans had saved up and made their own investments to cover their sunset years. Then widows and widowers would not be insulting the value of certain types of careers, and we could all work together as Americans to solve issues which endanger us all.

Martin Kandl

March 31, 2016, 2:09am (report abuse)


All you slugs with your government pension checks can kiss my rosy red rectum.

You get what you deserve. Too bad for you they don't let you screw the rest of us out of more.

Martin Kandl

March 31, 2016, 2:19am (report abuse)

Mr Tuttle, you should go back and read your history to see who actually started the raids on the "trust fund." Then just maybe you would have a little credibility.

Martin Kandl

September 15, 2016, 11:47am (report abuse)

With only 25 more voting sessions scheduled it is clear this bill is dead.

Martin Kandl

October 10, 2016, 1:15am (report abuse)

The house is now down to no more than 16 voting sessions.

Can you say "DEAD BILL"?

Ed Rock

December 4, 2016, 2:05pm (report abuse)

Hey, Hey, Hey!

Only 8 more meeting days for the House of Representatives. Looks like this one will not make it.

Can you say "DEAD DUCK"?

Ed Rock

December 18, 2016, 8:31am (report abuse)

Turn Out The Lights!

It's over. All you whiners wanting "MORE MORE MORE" can go suck mud.

Try your "GIMME GIMME GIMME" whine somewhere else because it won't fly in Congress.


January 30, 2017, 6:18pm (report abuse)

[url=http://dapoxetine-onlinepriligy.net/]dapoxetine-onlinepriligy.net.ankor[/url] <a href="http://ventolinsalbutamol-buy.org/">ventolinsalbutamol-buy.org.ankor</a> http://ventolinsalbutamolbuy.org/


January 30, 2017, 6:29pm (report abuse)

[url=http://dapoxetine-onlinepriligy.net/]dapoxetine-onlinepriligy.net.ankor[/url] <a href="http://ventolinsalbutamol-buy.org/">ventolinsalbutamol-buy.org.ankor</a> http://ventolinsalbutamolbuy.org/


January 30, 2017, 7:08pm (report abuse)

[url=http://dapoxetine-onlinepriligy.net/]dapoxetine-onlinepriligy.net.ankor[/url] <a href="http://ventolinsalbutamol-buy.org/">ventolinsalbutamol-buy.org.ankor</a> http://ventolinsalbutamolbuy.org/


January 31, 2017, 1:43am (report abuse)

[url=http://dapoxetine-onlinepriligy.net/]dapoxetine-onlinepriligy.net.ankor[/url] <a href="http://ventolinsalbutamol-buy.org/">ventolinsalbutamol-buy.org.ankor</a> http://ventolinsalbutamolbuy.org/

Add Comment

Number of characters:

Comments are limited to 1,000 characters. Please do other visitors the courtesy of expressing yourself concisely. WashingtonWatch.com bears no responsibility for comments nor any obligation to publish them. Comments that are impolite, off-topic, violations of others' rights, or advertisements are likely to be removed.

(To request new code, make a copy of your comment and hit "Refresh" in your browser.)

RSS Feeds for This Bill

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