Category: 

What is the Windfall Elimination Provision?

Article Details
  • Written By: Adam Hill
  • Edited By: C. Wilborn
  • Last Modified Date: 11 November 2014
  • Copyright Protected:
    2003-2014
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
The oldest known tortoise is 182 years old, and is believed by scientists to be the oldest living land creature.  more...

November 23 ,  1936 :  The modern version of "Life" magazine published its firs  more...

In United States tax law, the windfall elimination provision is a regulation that aims to prevent retirees from receiving more Social Security benefits than they are entitled to, based on their payments into the Social Security system during their working years. This would have an effect for someone who receives a pension from a job where Social Security payments were not deducted from his paychecks. Whatever pension that person collected from such employment would reduce the amount of his Social Security benefits during retirement.

The windfall elimination provision was implemented in 1983 as an effort to increase fairness in the way that Social Security benefits were given. Prior to this time, someone could unfairly receive retirement benefits as if they had earned a low income during their working years. This happened to retirees who contributed little to the Social Security system while working in jobs covered by it, but were well paid in jobs not covered by the program. A person could thus receive benefits that had not been earned, as far as the Social Security Administration was concerned.

Ad

The windfall elimination provision has the effect of reducing one's retirement benefits if he receives a pension from a job where Social Security taxes were not taken out of his pay. Retirement benefits are intended to replace only a certain percentage of someone's earnings while employed. For example, a worker who earned a relatively low wage could receive benefits equal to 50% of his pre-retirement wages. A person who held a high-paying job, however, may only receive benefits in the amount of 25% of his former wages.

Until the windfall elimination provision was instated, someone who worked primarily at jobs where Social Security taxes were not deducted from pay could receive more than his intended percentage. This is because from a Social Security standpoint, his earnings had been low throughout his life. A job that is not covered by Social Security might for a nonprofit entity, or a job held in another country, for example.

Some exceptions were written into this legislation in an effort to avoid unintended consequences. For example, this provision does not apply to money paid out as survivor's benefits after the death of the worker. It also does not apply if the wages that were untaxed by Social Security were earned before 1957. Those whose pensions are relatively low are also protected from receiving too little, because the windfall elimination provision is limited in the amount by which it can reduce benefits.

Ad

More from Wisegeek

You might also Like

Discuss this Article

anon977466
Post 61

I just discovered that I am to be a victim of this WEP also, but Social Security was so confused and my MA state retirement board could also not help. I worked for covered SS jobs and paid the max for 17 years. I worked for the state of MA from 1970 -1986 as an office worker for the courts. I left at age 34 due to having a baby and subsequent divorce. I was told at that time that I could leave my money there and collect a small pension at 55 ( interest would only be earned for two years, though! )

I needed that money to live on. I had to pay federal tax and a penalty for early withdrawal as if it were a 401K, but all contributions were mine, and none were from the state.

I just applied for SS and found I would probably have my SS benefits cut. The lady there was unsure. I did research and it appears I will be cut. Because mine is called a lump sum retirement, the way I see it, per the ss online calculator, I will only lose 1/2 of my prorated small pension amount, or $46. I am worried I am doing something wrong since others say theirs is cut so much.

For people worrying about losing so much, I do know that if you have 30 years of substantial SS earnings, the WEP is eliminated and for more than 20 years, it is a lesser reduction. I had the misfortune of dividing my time pretty equally between a non covered pension and a covered one so I would have to work until age 76 to eliminate my own WEP.

gsuemnic
Post 60

I need three years 'substantial' earnings. The sad part is each year they keep raising the 'substantial' earnings required. For 2014, it is $21,750, up $675 from 2013. That's $ 3.08 an hour!

ingriddavis
Post 59

Why can't we begin a class action suit? There are enough of us in the country to do this, and yes, we can sue the country; it is done all the time. I am tired of trying to make ends meet, as a widow, and a retired teacher. If I had my husband's Social Security, of which I can not have dime, I would be comfortable. Now, I have to substitute teach until the day I die! Class action suit -- who is with me?

anon939729
Post 58

The person who wrote this article doesn't realize the economic damage the WEP and GPO laws have done to millions of seniors, many of whom have had their earned Social Security benefits cut by up to 66 percent. Think about it: if someone paid into Social Security for benefits and was entitled to receive $1,200 per month, that check was reduced to $400 per month. Try living on that paltry sum. These laws were a way of raising taxes on the elderly. It means testing should not be allowed under Social Security laws. If a person paid into the system, that person should be entitled to what he or she had earned. People with private annuities are not penalized simply because they paid into a private annuity system in addition to paying into the Social Security system.

It would only cost about $6.2 billion extra per year to pay our seniors the benefits they actually earned. Some in Congress say we can't afford this. Nevertheless, these same people fritter away trillions in aid to foreign nations. What the hell?

Let's pass the Social Security Fairness Act of 2013 and correct this injustice.

anon931191
Post 57

I was an adjunct instructor for 13 years at a local community college (Ma.) Participation in the Mass Smart Plan (457b) was mandated because I fell under the OBRA guidelines. Only my earnings went into the plan & I paid all administrative fees to ING. I started drawing spousal SS benefits in 2006, but did not withdraw my Smart Plan benefits until 2011 ($14,000 after taxes). Shortly thereafter, I was notified by SS that I was overpaid by $6008, and would lose all SS benefits,including Medicare, if I did not repay them.

They asserted that I could have been getting $134.76 a month from my state "pension", so they reduced my spousal benefits by 2/3 of that amount. The irony is that if I had drawn monthly payments & paid taxes, my "pension" would have been totally depleted by Jan. 2013. Yet I am convinced that my SS reduction will continue until my death.

anon925452
Post 56

Writing to your congress person and asking them to repeal the WEP and GPO laws are a total waste of time. They haven't been moved by such pleas for over 30 years and they won't be moved now.

It's time to vote these self-serving jerks out of office and elect people from alternative parties. If you want to write to your representative, tell him/her that they're on the way out because they have not worked actively enough, if at all, to repeal these unfair laws that have thrown many thousands of our seniors into poverty.

anon924165
Post 55

I worked for the state of Texas school system for 32 years. I retired this year, and I was caught up in the windfall. It took away most of my Social Security and I had to take the lesser amount in my state pension, because I didn't have an older beneficiary.

On your state pension, you have to pay taxes on the money you are receiving each month. You have to pay your insurance and I was told by SS I file on my disabled ex-husband, because this year it has the windfall provision, This law is not fair to a lot of hard working and dedicated people. This law forces a lot of older people to return back

to the work force.

anon923876
Post 54

I am a state of Illinois retiree who started working for the state at 32 years old, retired at 55, and now at 62 I recently signed up for SS. I knew I would be penalized by the WEP in which they took half of the original low benefits I was to receive, so now, it's next to nothing. It wouldn't have been so bad, but the crooks and liars who run the state have now stopped paying for my health insurance premium that they originally said they would pay for the rest of my life.

They have recently delivered another kick in the nuts by taking away my COLA in the recently passed pension reform bill. I'm not in the best of health to go back to work, but I'm working on several job prospects that will be for cash only and believe me the IRS can kiss me where the sun don't shine.

anon339983
Post 53

I recently spoke to someone at my local Social Security office, and I was told that based on their calculations, my Social Security will be reduced by 55 percent, because I retired with a state government pension (CA), which I got as a result of being injured on the job.

When I asked if Social Security based their calculation on my entire work history of jobs I had where I paid into Social Security, I was told "Only from the age of 21 forward." I started working and paying into Social Security at the age of 16! I don't understand this. Maybe I missed something, and I'm misunderstanding what I was told. I have a total of 28 years of paying into Social Security, and 10 years of not paying into it.

Getting injured on my job has hurt me both physically and financially, and now this. I'm barely living on what I'm getting now, and that is living with no debt, or unnecessary luxuries (cable t.v., new car, cell phone, etc.). I don't get it!

anon333725
Post 52

We are all in the same boat, but can't be heard because we aren't large enough in numbers and not organized. Major rip-off.

anon326761
Post 50

I too have been caught in the windfall mess. I worked for the govt for 30 years retiring at the age of 55 knowing full well I would work in the civilian work force. I am now 72 and still working to make ends meet. By this crazy reduction of money that I earned, I now have a bill each year for my medicare since I do not get enough money from SS per month to pay. I got caught up in the SS red tape and lost my benefits for one year. Boy was I worried that if I got sick what could we do? I am still fighting SS since they keep sending me letters telling me I owe this and that if I don't comply, I will again lose my benefits, so I paid up.

I actually paid them up front for the rest of 2013. It took me three long days getting through to a a SS office and then when I hung, up I was still confused. Why do the talk to us in a language we cannot understand?

Please, someone talk to us in easy terms and not send us letters from a computer, but from a real human being. Also, if my husband dies before me I cannot collect his full ss benefits because of my real big government pension. I will again send a letter to my senators and see if anyone responds back.

Good luck to all of us. Maybe with all of the rooms in the White House we could go live there since this house really belongs to us the people. Yeah, right.

anon325856
Post 49

I have worked 28 years under social security with substantial income and 16 years as a public school teacher under PERA. I too will lose some Social Security benefits. I have been a teacher for 40 years and together my pension and social security doesn't come close to what a 30 year retiring teacher would get.

It should at least be equal if not more for the extra 10 years of service and paying into the systems. Because I am single it is especially difficult to plan to retire.

anon320560
Post 48

Don't just complain or be anxious. Things can change, but we have to do our part. I know people have written, talked and fumed about this and gotten no results. Baby boomers are retiring and a large political force. Let's gather that force and eliminated this awful hidden tax. Please do something. We can't be complacent or give up. There's no giving up. Now we have a president who might fight for this, certainly more than republicans. If they want to modify the WEP to affect only the upper-earners they supposedly were targeting, maybe that would be a compromise.

OK, get fired up and do something. I will. It's our money to lose!

anon318778
Post 47

This 1983 federal law was passed to keep the high ranking officers from double dipping! These were the generals, admirals, and people making big bucks from the military and then taking over the same positions as civilians as GS-15 and above.

This is why this law was passed. It was never meant to hurt the lowest of the enlisted ranks, because that was not what was killing the program. The poor people at the bottom is where it did the most damage! I went from $1,200.00 to $278.00 and my wife really suffered in that she only gets $121.00 after her medicare payment. It was the big wigs they wanted to stop and they only hurt the little guy!

anon309009
Post 46

As an Illinois teacher I (along with thousands of other teachers) were required to pay into Social Security from some of our teacher wages instead of contributing to TRS.

Consequently, our TRS pension is diminished and the Social Security benefits are penalized per WEP because we receive a pension from TRS whose members are exempt from social security participation. Guess what? TRS denies the policy that is a matter of pubic record.

anon307999
Post 45

No more petitions for change! Enough is enough! It's time to sue the U.S. government and make it repeal the unfair WEP and GPO laws.

I'm one of the people who has had his earned Social Security benefits cut by 60 percent due to this nation's unfair WEP and GPO laws (actually a hidden tax on hundreds of thousands of seniors.) Then, if you add my federal, state and local taxes, I'm paying well over 70 percent per year in taxes. Now the needy bell-ringing charities are trying to guilt me into giving to them what little the government has permitted me to keep.

At the same time, our smiling president - that same person who plans to spend 4 million dollars of taxpayer money on his next vacation and over $100 million just for his inauguration - is completely happy to take us over the fiscal cliff. Well, who cares? As far as hundreds of thousands of seniors like myself are concerned, we went over that cliff a long time ago.

The government has refused to even vote on any bill to repeal WEP and GPO, tying up bills in committee for the last 30 years. Things are never going to change until we join together and create a class action suit against the government.

anon299111
Post 44

Everybody affected by the WEP should write to

the congressmen and first of all directly to President Obama. It is up to him to take action and force the Congress to eliminate this unfair, unjust and discriminatory WEP Act.

anon294262
Post 43

I am 69, a recent widow, and will have my Social security benefits reduced as I only have 26 years of what they call substantial income. My health is failing, and I have worked for all my life because the jobs offered in my field were in a system that did not take out Social Security. I am going to be penalized. Legalized stealing comes to mind. This is so unfair.

anon289992
Post 42

What states do not have WEP? I would like to move to one before I retire.

anon283540
Post 41

My husband who had worked for 25 years, passed away on the first month he is to receive SS check. I am not getting a widow's pension and SS told me I have a city pension. When is WEP to be reversed? Can I reapply for husband's benefits then?

anon276856
Post 40

I paid Social Security for six years on full time jobs. I voluntarily paid social security for 12 years on part time jobs. The majority of my career, I worked for state government, and paid for all of the retirement that I can receive. The Social Security that I paid for would have paid $558 retirement per month.

The Windfall Elimination Provision takes $308 per month, leaving me with $250 per month. I never received a windfall, or any help paying for the retirement I receive. I can't find a definition for social security windfall, but theft seems appropriate.

anon274648
Post 39

I am so frustrated by this garbage. Stealing from those of us who earn, relatively, little so the rich can continue their low taxes!

I'm skeptical, but feel I have to do something, so I have created a petition. Please add your name and, moreover, spread news of this injustice to others. I've had a lot of discussions with friends after sending the petition to them.

There are also others out there. We have to make some noise about this.

anon273229
Post 38

Obama said he would work to repeal the unfair Windfall Elimination Provision Social Security law. He lied. Romney hasn't said a word about it. (I've specifically asked his campaign office several times and they won't respond.)

So what do we do? Personally, I'm voting for a third party candidate. I'm sick of this continual business as usual government.

anon269427
Post 37

I am 63 years old and have worked previously for a municipality where we did not pay into social security.However, I have previous work where I paid into social security and currently have another 15 years of social security paid employment.

At age 66 I will have a total of 29 years of paying into social security. Will this exempt me from the Windfall Elimination Provision?

anon263641
Post 36

Here's another unjust addition to the WFE act. After 30 years of government work with a pension and no social security, I retired with a modest pension. At the same time I got a divorce.

My ex husband wanted 50 percent of my pension, and he received 20 percent for the rest of his life. I, on the other hand, cannot get any of his social security as it is not "marital property" but government pensions are.

I cannot get any of my meager social security now and cannot get any of his social security. So I live on $1,200 a month while he gets $1,500 from social security and $500 from me. Yeah, that's fair! Not only does the WEA need to be fixed but also the definition of "marital property."

anon262803
Post 35

I sympathize with you with the slightest exception of leilani. I too had paid into the private sector for 10 years in MA, and now I am within the public educational industry paying into a pension, and no longer contributing to Social Security. I am not entitled to my Social Security benefits, nor those of my husband's while under this windfall provision in MA.

@Leilani: My question for you is, if I am not entitled to the monies that I had taken from my paychecks for ten year, then who is? I think everything would agree that Social Security is supplemental money, not self-sustaining income, however, one's money is one's money.

There are people out there who are "double dipping," e.g., retiring in one state and going to work in another where there is private pension-based or Social Security-income bearing employment.

The argument that we as now public sector employees cannot benefit from the Social Security system that we have paid into for years (or decades) is preposterous and unfounded. It is nothing more than the government stealing our money. If "crying" is what we are doing, then so be it. We want what we had paid into, just as those who reap Social Security for not even working, simply by marriage alone -- and in this case per a newly released article -- divorcees can benefit from spouse's Social Security even if both parties remarry, so long as the first marriage lasted for ten years or more.

anon260597
Post 34

I started at the Post Office (federal employee) at the suggestion of the Navy when I got out after Vietnam.

I would warn new vets of the windfall law and how it affects their future. Go into the private sector or county, state or city government jobs. Don't go federal unless they receive a large salary. The Social Security office will take your earnings away after you retire if you go federal.

anon259284
Post 33

When I went to the Social Security office, I was pleased when they told me I had a certain retirement benefit coming. I had also calculated the same amount. But before I left the office, they told me I would receive nothing because I was still working. So, I had gone into their office and was told I had a certain amount coming and zero by the time I left. They also told me I would never receive the full amount because I had a state retirement coming at some point and that was considered a windfall.

I asked if my retirement of less than $1000 a month was a windfall. They told me "yes". They disgust me! I would like to know the ones who voted for my earned benefit to be stolen by the government.

anon256060
Post 32

The windfall elimination is so unjust and takes away from "others" who worked so hard for the government or in education. Something needs to be done. There has to be someone who can try to get something done to change this. It robs the American people of money they deserve to receive.

anon255954
Post 31

What can be done to get a WEP/GPO repeal bills out of committee (Ways and Means) and onto the floor where it can be voted on? These bills never reach the floor on congress because they are shelved in committee. What can be done to stop this unfair practice and have a repeal bill put up for an honest vote?

leilani
Post 30

Social Security income was never meant to take care of us fully when we get old. A little help yes, a supplement yes, but we can not count on it as an income that will take care of us when we become 65 or so. We are supposed to save during our working years, put something aside for old age.

Working hard is not sufficient if all the money earned is spent along the way. Working hard does not mean a thing in regards to our old age if we do not save and invest some of that money while we are still young. If income earned equals income spent, then surprise, we have no money in the bank.

It is irrelevant of how many hours a week we work. If we spend all that we earn whose fault is that? And what is really sad is that people end up being poor at a time when opportunities to earn extra money dwindle down. And it is all because of lack of planning.

We are supposed to save about 10% of our earnings all throughout our working years. There will be no surprises then when we hit 65.

Please do not blame others. Children do that. Do not look to government to take care of you. Helpless people do that.

That money had to come from somewhere. It must come from some other workers. It is not as if the government or SS are businesses earning money. They are just collecting agencies, collecting from all of us, and then distributing, and in the process spending a lot of that money on managing it all.

Adults take care of themselves by being prudent, frugal if necessary and look not only to the moment, but plan for the future.

anon244162
Post 29

I am going out of my mind. I am age 65 and have worked hard most of my life. I was looking forward to retiring, but guess what? I can't due to this unjust law. Here's the kicker: my state personal retirement is $485 a month (not quite fully invested for health benefits) and my Social Security is $755 a month.

When I called SS, I was told my SS payment would be $225, leaving me $710 minus $115 for medicare so now my income is $595. That doesn't even cover my house payment, not to mention food, utilities or any of the basics. Where is the fairness in that?

Just another reason for people to go on public assistance. I suppose the republicans would call that Obamacare!

This law needs to be eliminated or adjusted for the people not having full retirement from personal and have worked years for their Social Security.

palmsprings
Post 28

I'm a retired teacher in California, as well as having worked from age 15 until age 32 at various other jobs putting myself through school. Of course, now at age 74, I receive only a portion of the social security that I paid into because I receive a state pension from California for those 15 years of service. I am back to work and fortunate that I can work and pay the bills.

Is there an attorney out there who is willing to take an individual case or even better a class action suit? I have written many letters to congressmen, government officials, etc. to no avail. I doubt that in my lifetime this will be resolved unless we file a lawsuit.

anon242135
Post 27

I am also retired and desperately need the WEP to be repealed. However, I'm told that since Democrats have pledged that they must find substitute funds to delete from the budget in order to pass the 2011 bills, there is no chance for repeal.

Also, other websites say that courts will likely not choose to hear a lawsuit about this.

This is not what I was raised to believe the U.S. "work ethic" and "fairness doctrine" was all about!

anon236862
Post 26

Were there any lawsuits against the Windfall Elimination Provision in 2011? If so, any outcome? It is a totally unfair law.

anon200515
Post 25

are there any states that do not have the windfall elimination penalty?

anon199040
Post 24

I was a claims representative for the Social Security Admin in 1983 when the "windfall elimination provision" was implemented. I recognized it immediately as a poorly disguised effort to penalize anyone not paying solely into the social security system and that it was clearly discriminatory against a class of people, primarily government workers. The rationale for the "windfall elimination" does not stand up under even the most cursory scrutiny. It implies that social security is primarily a welfare, yet worker contributory, system in which the need for the benefit carries more weight than what a person contributes to it when determining actual payment amounts. However, only one group of people is told they must receive less than their fellow contributors, i.e., they are somehow considered to be double dipping or receiving more than their far share. That group includes only people who receive pensions based on non social security covered work.

What nonsense! This provision, implemented at a time when government workers were openly reviled as little more than freeloaders, and were never called into account as to need, the person making a six-digit income and receiving an unreduced social security payment at the same time. Or, for that matter, a whole host of other persons receiving large "social security covered" pensions. The cost to those of us caught in this "provision" is significant, as evidenced by people responding to this article.

Please understand that the first "bend point" for determining a person's full retirement age social security amount is $749. Everyone who does not receive a non-covered pension and has contributed sufficient funds to the social security system receives 90 percent of that figure plus 32 percent of the next bend point when determining the full retirement benefit. If you receive a non-covered pension and have worked 20 or less years in social security covered work you will receive only 40 percent of the $749. That amounts to a $375 reduction in the full retirement age amount for the person with the non-covered pension even if they paid in exactly the same amount for as a person receiving a covered pension or no pension at all. While the social security administration is vigilantly protecting the system from the supposed persons who do not deserve the same benefits as everyone else, they are paying out benefits with no stipulations to millionaires over age 65 as well as to persons with large social security covered pensions.

My own situation is: 18 years of civil service pension covered work to which I contributed and 18 years of social security covered work to which I contributed double since I was a self-employed pastor. That work came after my stint with the Social Security Administration. In the end, my $800 government pension reduces my social benefit at age 62 by $282 because I am considered an unworthy double dipper rather than a double payer which is what I (and all other persons in my situation) really am. I am going to copy this article, and the comments to it, and sent it to every congress person I can think of.

anon196105
Post 23

Does this only apply if the survivor retires? My friend teaches and is a widow. She thinks she'll get her dead husband's benefits when she turns 60 until she retires. Is that correct?

anon177437
Post 22

I collect a pension after working in state government for 30 years. My husband gets social security. Under the windfall tax, I cannot collect his social security if he passes away before me.

However, if I die first, he gets my state pension and will continue to receive social security. Where is the fairness in that? We need a lawyer to file a class action lawsuit.

anon173509
Post 21

I taught school for 16 years in the Czech Republic, after the Velvet Revolution. My beginning pay was $85 a month. My ending pay was about $850 in 2009. I am getting around $240 a month in Czech retirement and the U.S. system calls this a windfall. They have reduced my U.S. benefits $151 because I am getting a Czech pension. I only get $714 a month from the U.S. now.

This is legalized theft--stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. I am working on my second appeal with no lawyer and no legal resources. They know that we are old and poor and can't fight this injustice. It makes me sick

anon167568
Post 20

I applied for SS and receive a total of $252.00 a month - for the rest of my life. My pension is $1080.00 a month. I'm not going to be able to make it. I worked hard as a law enforcement officer in Philadelphia and was honest.

I am now 64 years old and looking forward to a fearful future if I get sick. Aging is a tough place to be for me The big apple pie in the sky is non-existent. What can be done as soon as possible?

anon165549
Post 19

Is there a lawyer out there who would explore a class action effort against the WEP on the grounds that it is discriminatory?

anon165544
Post 17

I paid into the Teachers' Retirement System of IL for 33 years. I also ran my business and contributed more than $46000 to SS over 30 years.

My SS benefit is reduced to a paltry $222 monthly because of the WEP. I paid into the system and deserve my full benefits just like anyone else. Either give me the full benefits or return my $46000. The WEP is unfair, unjust and discriminatory to people in 15 states.

anon161017
Post 16

Write your congress person! This affects baby boomers, a huge segment of American populace. Write your government reps and we could get his fixed. Don't and it will stand.

anon158534
Post 15

Suppose someone worked as a teacher, did not pay into SS, and retired. Then, they went on to become a US congressman, having an enhanced retirement system separate from the US social security retirement system. Does the Windfall Elimination Provision apply to them? If not, why should it not?

anon145226
Post 14

I agree with all the posts I read, except the one about having patience. I worked part time while my children were growing up, so neither my social security nor my government pension is enough to live on. Had I contributed to a non- government pension plan, this would not be happening. Where is the sense, or the justice in that? I paid into both government systems. Why are they failing me now?!

anon137407
Post 13

I worked in the private sector until I was thirty-four and paid in my forty quarters. Then I worked twenty years for a municipal fire department and did not pay FICA.

I'm not asking for SS benefits for years I did not pay into the system; only those I did. For those of you contemplating do I or don't I sign up, when and if the bill passes, my senator said it would not be retroactive. Check on your congressman's retirement benefits!

anon122316
Post 12

I retired from the Fed government at 50 years old so I took a reduced pension. For the past 10 years I have paid max in to FICA (in an unrelated field). Unbelievable to me that my SSA benefit will be reduced by 40 percent. We should be able to collect on any system we paid in to. I don't want a penny more but I don't want lots of pennies less.

anon118235
Post 11

the windfall elimination is very bad. I worked 40 years in the US and because I was born in another country I collect a small amount from that country, that pension is considered as a residence pension and I was cut the full amount. I do not think that it is right.

anon118180
Post 10

I am a single woman who worked 26-1/2 years for the federal government, and then took an early retirement when I had the chance because I couldn't escape long hours on the computer, and the computer monitors caused me to have terrible headaches every single day.

That problem also prevented me from taking jobs at a higher level because I would have had to spend even more hours on the computer in the middle grades, so I had to retire as a GS-4.

Then I went on to work under social security at jobs that didn't require so much computer work. I never worked two jobs at one time. Since I lived alone there was never a second income in the home. I was shocked when I filed for social security and discovered that even at my low income my social security check would be substantially reduced.

I receive only $2,000 social security (gross)a year--that's right, I really do mean per year, not by the month, and that is before they deduct for Medicare Part B and leave me with less than $100 SS per month, added to a very unusually low government annuity check. After I make my insurance payments and pay my rent for a one-bedroom apartment, I do not even come close to having enough money to pay all my bills.

I lost my job and had to sell my very modest home because I couldn't afford to keep it, and I depend on the money from that to make ends meet. As soon as that money runs out, I will have a serious problem.

I am almost 68 and have been looking unsuccessfully for another job, but I just had major surgery and need another one.

How can something called a Windfall Elimination Provision apply to someone with such a low income? Until they can repeal this law, the least they can do is hurry up and pass a law to keep it from applying to low-income people who have worked all their lives.

I had always thought this law only applied to people who worked two jobs at one time, but they told me it does apply to me. I hope this administration does something about this quickly. The additional I would get still won't be enough to cover all necessary expenses, but it will keep me from running out of savings so quickly.

I have never married so have no options such as a husband's retirement income. I also have no close family. The future terrifies me. I worked hard all my life and don't deserve this.

anon112769
Post 9

I worked 27 years for the federal government and the windfall hit me plus the big offset penalty loss of my husband's part of my SS retirement.

I now get 1/3 of my own SS. I lost $900 a month, and it was badly needed with my low civil service grade 8 income (and with the affirmative action years unable to get classes/promotions worthy of my experience/skills).

anon112029
Post 8

Obama will reverse the windfall Elimination Act, just have patience.

anon110977
Post 7

I don't understand how the government can take from

people who were hard working and give money to people who did absolutely nothing.

anon96386
Post 6

The WEP is yet another example of how the government can change the rules halfway through the game. To assert, as congress has, that paying benefits to someone who legitimately paid into the system for the required number of quarters, who also had a 'non-social security' pension, is a windfall, is a gross mischaracterization.

It unfairly labels someone who legitimately paid into Social Security, as some sort of blatant double dipper. Once again the government has decided that it is is justified in breaching promises it has made, if it determines that the recipient is making 'too much money.'

anon89844
Post 5

i totally agree. It stinks bad enough that my husband will receive 25 percent of his income at retirement because he is subsidizing those that did not put themselves through seven or eight years of college, but now I am punished for being a teacher?

I paid in to social security until I was 32! I started working at age 15. The feds taxed me for the social security they took out because it was for my future retirement. Now they can just take it?

anon77574
Post 4

Windfall? Exactly how is it a windfall? It's my money, my time, my efforts that have contributed to my social Security.

This legislation is nothing more than legalized theft, but then, this is the US congress we're

talking about.

anon47820
Post 3

another disadvantage living in Maine with the windfall. A teacher whose spouse worked in the s.s. system and dies. the teacher can't collect the full death benefit of the spouse who was gainfully employed all his life and paid Social Security.

anon37865
Post 2

Well i guess we shouldn't work a second job and just go on unemployment instead....That would help now wouldn't it?

anon35892
Post 1

The windfall elimination is totally unfair and unjust.

Post your comments

Post Anonymously

Login

username
password
forgot password?

Register

username
password
confirm
email