...It appears to me that this would eliminate two policies that don't allow people to collect Social Security payments if no payments were ever made by them into the Social Security system.

In other words, a person who worked a job that didn't automatically remove a social security deduction from their paycheck becuase their employment had a different retirement pension system (and didn't pay into Social Security any other way) and is therefore not recieving Social Security payments now, would begin to receive Social Security payments now if this bill passes.

If that is correct, how would their Social Security benefits be calculated since they never paid anything in?

And how could the Social Security trustfund be expected to break even if it pays out to people who haven't paid in?

And why would anyone be receiving anything now if they never paid anything in?

I understand the hope is to keep the elderly funded after they stop working, and I agree with that, but shouldn't that happen under a different system than the "pay in-pay out" Social Security plan, especially when the retired employee is already receiving benefits from their non-Social Security pension plan?

But due to having a state pension also cannot collect on what they paid in

Also with spouses, these people are being denied a benefit other people get

Check out link

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/spouse.html

I could be wrong, if someone can explain it better, I will stand corrected

Thank you

...and are being denied the benefits those payments earned them, only because they have other, un-related retirement income?

I agree that would need to be changed.

But is that the case?

I'll see if I can find the text of the policies that are being revoked by this bill.

not earned worker benefits. It has to do with the dual entitlement rule. The two provisions of WEP and GPO are completely separate and passed during two different administrations. The GPO was enacted as a way to equalize benefits for dependents who had no work history or spotty work history and those who didn't pay into the system and have generous pensions from working 25, 30, or more years. The latter could potentially get a six-figure income with both SS survivor/spousal benefits and their non-SS pensions. It is nothing to find retired clerical workers in states like Nevada getting 50, 60, or 70 thousand-a-year pensions. That is a real problem. However, since GPO is part of the repeal, I am not going to raise a giant stink about it. Any inequities will have to be fixed down the road.

The WEP is outright theft of EARNED benefits.

Yet they seldom if never are.

Why not address that with this bill now?

And yes, it does seem that the WEP and GPO are 2 entirely different issues AND SHOULD BE HANDLED AS SUCH.

If this bill is going to shift BOTH of those issues at the same time, it seems to me it is just pushing the pendulum to the opposite side by correcting one problem that needs correction, while pushing a different non-problem into the "needs correction" column.

I don't know if those people paid into SS, if not why is it I worked hard and earned a pension I get
penalized with tax and they get rewarded!

It was sold as a tax on only wealthy SS recipients and has become a perpetually increasing tax on (currently) 40% of ss recipients.

affects. That threshold would be about $75k for a single person adjusted for inflation
and close to $100k for a couple.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html#:~:text=The%20taxation%20of%20Social%20Security,an%20overwhelmingly%20bi%2Dpartisan%20vote.

In my opinion, it was taxed to pay for Reagan tax cuts.

What should have been added, that it would be adjusted yearly just like the cap which will be over $170,000 in 2025

Just saw this, Angie Craig from Minnesota has bill to eliminate federal taxes on social security and increase the cap on the wealthy to pay for it which would increase the longevity of social security for 20 years and also pay down the deficit.

http://craig.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-angie-craig-announces-new-legislation-eliminate-federal-taxes-social#:~:text=PAUL%20%E2%80%93%20Today%2C%20U.S.%20Representative%20Angie,into%20the%20pockets%20of%20retirees.

Bills like representative Craig's should be on a Democratic to do list and to actually promote it make a schoolhouse Rock video and explain it so even a 5th grader would understand it

Nobody would get SS worker benefits who didn't pay in at all. You have to have 40 quarters to qualify for retired worker benefits. You get zero years for those years you don't pay in, and your SS benefit is already reduced as a result. The WEP is basically a penalty used against an SS benefit you would otherwise earn.

The GPO is a completely different animal, and it is a shame it is joined with the WEP. They are two completely different provisions passed during two different administrations.

About 2 1/2 million public service workers are affected by WEP. About 750,000 are affected by GPO.

From my understanding the only people that are exempted from contributing every paycheck are some government employees covered by other pensions. Yet, people in the private sector with pensions or other retirement funds aren't permitted to opt out.

Social Security contributions are required for everyone else except them. Do they think the SS system that everyone else is a part of is inferior?

They didn't pay into ss but now they'll get it?

Someone with a pretty decent government pension who worked enough credits to qualify for SS on a previous job will now get to apply for SS benefits based on that previous income.

What is an issue is that they many of them will receive monthly SS checks far disproportionate to the amount that they ever put in. The SS system has a minimum monthly payment that far exceeds what very low income people have contributed in order to ensure people are able to survive when they are retired. As far as the system sees it, they didn't contribute very much over a lifetime, so even though they have a pretty healthy pension coming in every month, their SS payments will be structured as if they were low income earners.

easy fix to any alleged shortfall.

I stand to get at least $120 a month MORE in my benefit since they reduced my SS with more than a third of my tiny (then $341) Nevada pension. This was for a mere five years total in Nevada PERS, but a year-and-a-half of that five I was paying FICA on my fulltime private school teaching job.

That means it won't be able to cover its obligations (at least unless something's done to fix it).

"Insolvent" doesn't mean "out of money." It just means the law will say to pay a certain amount and the SSA will say something like, "I can pay 75 cents on the dollar."

In that sense there's nothing to "fix"--SS payment will then be 100% pay-go, no dipping into invested assets to fund current pay-outs. Even now, liquidating those assets just moves the debt around on the books and increase current interest expenses paid by the Treasury. They are transferred to publicly debt on the books of the federal government, issued as T-bills and the like at commercial rates, as opposed to the internally held special issue Treasury bills at a fixed rate.