It does seem like double-dipping to me.

in addition to having worked in other jobs like municipal/county/state/federal that at the time they were working, weren't covered under SS.

I.e., if someone spent 20 years (which = 80 quarters) paying into SS through the FICA tax at some corporation and then moved to a government job (say teaching) that wasn't covered by SS, and they worked for maybe 15 more years, why should they not be eligible for full SS from their earlier employment?

and that tends to be based on salary too so it will vary from person to person.

ETA - note too that there are probably hundreds of thousands or more who never LIVE to collect SS, even if they spent decades paying into it... and if they have no spouse/survivor, then what they paid into the system remains in the pool (for others). I.e., this is a big thing for many POC who don't make it to age 65.

bills because social security has taken in more than it's paid out, then you may be correct.

But otherwise, soc security is a pay as you go system and will remain that once it starts paying out more than it takes in in soc sec taxes.

(as anything $$$ transacted with the federal government)

People forget that "Social Security" is actually "insurance" and there is an employer match for what the employee pays.

As a small business owner who paid double Social Security for 35 years I cringe when politicians call it an entitlement. 12+% off the top plus the matching contributions to the employees accounts would be a #ell of a nest egg. Congress needs to focus on paying back the money they took for Social Security, raise the contribution cap and get on with it!

is being misused as Social Security was designed as INSURANCE (which has a different meaning from things like annuities).

I.e., "OASDI" = "Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance" (the "survivors" part being completely missed by many including some on DU wondering why "spouses" would get a worker's SS).

It's just like unemployment "insurance" is also taken out of employee paychecks (with an employer match).

Alaska, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are the only states that require employees to pay state unemployment insurance. I'm not sure why this is. Unemployment insurance is complicated.

I do know that employer unemployment tax rates go up if there are a lot of unemployment claims, which is why they try to fire for cause or get people to quit which makes them ineligible.

but all states have some kind of program and works with the feds for compensation - https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/unemployment-insurance

If you have a state pension, they (GOP for sure) didn't want you "double dipping" total misnomer If you worked in the private sector and accrued enough to qualify for SS/ Medicare, it was another punitive measure to screw you to the wall. Yeah I'm pissed, because that extra 900 bucks a month would really help my family. I earned it dammit. 14 states.

Windfall Elimination Provision. My wife and I both had state jobs after working in the private sector for years. I lose approximately 1/3 of my SS and my wife loses all but about 20 bucks of her SS income.

his social security when he took a job with the post office. They explain it up front so you make an informed employment decision.

would the passage of this bill mean that you will draw the same or more than you would have had your government job not been excluded from paying SS. I personally think you should be able to draw the equiv but not more, that is what I would classify as double-dipping.

I've always heard that government jobs might pay less than private sector but I'm not so sure about that - maybe in the old days but one big advantage of a government job is the benefits in many cases.

I don't resent anyone from making more in retirement but I wonder as a "fairness" issue especially since it is reported to cause the SS trust fund to depleted more than it would be otherwise. ☮

A family member has worked as a public school teacher for decades and also worked in private industry during the summer for 30+ years. She will get her pension and SSA when she retires.

I've been lurking on DU for years. Never felt a need to join until just now. Have spent the last two months educating folks on social media about the Social Security Fairness Act and looks like there is some need for that here. This Act is basically a restoration of SS benefits to public service employees who are impacted by an outdated formula developed during the Reagan era. Without going into the details, I will just use myself as an example of how it impacts unjustly. I worked in employment that paid into SS for 28 years. I also worked in county employment for 12 years that paid into a pension in lieu of SS. The WEP reduces my SS earned benefits (for my 28 years of SS earnings) by $350 dollars a month because of my county pension. As for the GPO, my spouse paid into SS for 45 years. Normally the spousal benefit is = to 50% of Spouse's benefit. My spousal benefit is reduced by 2/3 of my county pension which is totally unrelated to my spouse's SS earnings. So when SS calculates my Spousal benefit, first they subtract my SS benefit (pre-WEP reduction), then they subtract 2/3 of my county pension, leaving me with a whopping $50 monthly spousal benefit. So anyone who says well you shouldn't get what you didn't pay into, I have no words.

We still paid the same 3 or 6 percent or whatever the percentage was that we paid into SSA but instead of paying the fed, the contribution went directly into the state pension system. There was also a seperate contribution the employee made and some state match. The SS contributions made before, during, or after the state job added up to a much smaller SS benefit after retirement because many of the years that would have been part of the payout calculation do not count as part of your income. Nobody is getting more than their contributions allow just like someone who only worked short periods of their adult life. The rub is that the WEP penalizes people for having state pensions by reducing the SS benefit that wasn't that much to begin with. State jobs are not nearly as lucrative as the private sector. So you get to work for low wages all of your career and then have your SS benefits reduced once you retire and start enjoying that sweet, sweet dwindling retirement income.

I read the bill and it stated that "Effective December 2023" the WEP will be canceled. Does that mean SS recipients will get back payments?

It would provide back payments for 2024. But keep in mind, this will require SSA to reprogram calculations. SSA is already short staffed by 2,000. So if this happens, it could take a while to see any payments.

Former Fed here collecting a federal pension who also worked in the private sector where I paid into SS for about 20+ years. Right now, WEP reduces my SS by 40% although I have paid into SS for 20+ years.

Seems like the only ones permitted to opt out are government employees.

May not be accurate, but the perception is that they believe that the same SS system that the rest of us are obligated to contribute to isn't good enough for them. None of this would have ever been an issue if everyone had to contribute to SS regardless of whether or not they worked in the public or private sector.

You can use "the Google" or favorite search engine to discover lots of things!

You won't even bother looking something up. The internet is an amazing thing. The joke is on you.

Here is something to get you started (from my own state's (PA) page on it - https://www.pa.gov/agencies/dli/resources/for-claimants-workers/social-security-for-public-employees.html