The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), a federal reduction to an earned Social Security benefit, can affect retirees who receive a retirement benefit from an employer who did not withhold Social Security taxes. This includes many government agencies and public employers, such as those covered by PERA, and even employers in other countries.
Some Colorado PERA retirees who are impacted by the WEP have asked what PERA can do to resolve what they see as an unfair reduction in their Social Security benefits. PERA does not typically take positions on federal legislation, but we strongly encourage our members to be active in the political process by letting their elected officials know their positions on legislative matters – both at the state and national levels.
A bill that has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives would repeal the current WEP and provide long-sought relief to PERA members who have earned Social Security benefits. Congressmen Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Richard Neal (D-MA) are sponsors of H.R. 711, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2015. This legislation would replace the WEP with a new formula for public employees who qualify for a government pension.
The bill summary states that H.R. 711 would:
Amend title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to replace the current Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) (that reduces the Social Security benefits of workers who also have pension benefits from employment not covered by Social Security) for individuals who: (1) become eligible for old-age insurance benefits after 2016 or would attain age 62 after 2016 and become eligible for disability insurance benefits after 2016, (2) subsequently become entitled to such benefits, and (3) have earnings derived from noncovered service performed after 1977.
Additionally, H.R. 711 would:
- Establish a new formula for the treatment of noncovered earnings in determining Social Security benefits.
- Outline a second formula to modify the WEP for current beneficiaries.
- Direct the Commissioner of Social Security to recover overpayments from certain individuals.
If passed, the law would calculate Social Security benefits for public employees just as it does for all other workers – based on their Social Security contributions and work history. A WEP Repeal Fact Sheet was produced in the fall when the Congressmen first introduced the bill as H.R. 5697 in 2014. The Fact Sheet explains that the legislation would reduce the WEP by up to one-third for current retirees and up to one-half for future retirees, increasing lifetime Social Security benefits by between $20,000 and $32,400.
“If Americans are going to enjoy their golden years financially secure and comfortable, they must have a sound retirement plan. That is why I have been a strong supporter of the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act,” Representative Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a statement to MassLive. “Our dedicated public employees have paid into Social Security and they are entitled to their full benefits, just like any other worker. I am happy to join with my colleague Congressman Kevin Brady in a bipartisan effort to provide fair and just treatment for our retired public employees.”
PERA members and retirees may want to contact their representatives in Washington to weigh in on this potential change to the WEP. You can find how to contact your House Representative here and your Senator here.
See the PERA on the Issues article More About Social Security Reductions.
Windfall elimination provisionA provision of federal law that may reduce Social Security benefit payments to retirees who receive a pension based on work during which they did not contribute to Social Security. The WEP does not apply to those with 30 or more years of substantial earnings in Social Security.
Long overdue!!!
Ur right Anne I found out when I retired from CDOT , and in2012 I found out about the windfall tax..I paid in 23 yrs to ssi and they take 300.00 a month ,I need that xtra money to live !!! thanks to Kevin Brady Michael Brady
Mike, Let me add my total agreement with you here. I found out about the Windfall way, way too late. I was counting on both PERA and full SS for even a modest retirement. (The social security office was completely unhelpful when I tried to figure out if I had earned enough money to meet the 30 year exception). Now, I am facing many more years of work and a very restricted lifestyle until I can even consider retirement, at even a more restricted lifestyle.
I will write my Senators and Representative; I urge all of you to do the same.
We were very poorly paid as civil servants working for the state, surely “they” can let us have the modest SS benefits we earned.
Good luck!
Sarah
I guess they need the $300 for wars and more raises for themselves.
I to believe(and thought like Annethat I would be intitled to my full PERS and my full SS benefitsof which I paid into for12+years) to find out that my SS pension would be cut by 50% and my late husband(spousal benefit would be cut by 75%) I worked for the stateof which I livefor 31 years. Doesnt seem fair when some people can get more benefits by not working at all and getting all the benefits!!!
I agree! Also, isn’t it really nice to see representatives from both parties working together for our benefit. It’s encouraging!
Deb, a positive tone. I agree that the divisional political environment is toxic and this issue seems to be bipartisan enough for our representatives to work with a refreshing change.
I feel PERA members should be entitled to social security benefits that they earned through years of employment.
Absolutely new tax policy updates corporation tax benefits. Without question teachers who worked 2 jobs for survival andd have EARNED SS MONEY without question deserve this earned money esp now that new tax updates remove pera state pension deduction
Yes, indeed it is overdue. I worked my whole life in the private sector, 34 years in Social Security. Social Security counts only 27 years of my contributions as “substantial years,” but as a computer hardware engineer, I paid in plenty. I drove a school bus for many years as a retirement job. As a “detail guy” and a dad, I never scratched a bus driving in blizzards and ice storms, etc. and I loved and helped the kids, always. Now Social Security threatens to cut my 34 years of work-earned pension by ~ $300 per month because of the “windfall” of my tiny, earned school bus pension! (Talk about being thrown under the bus!) Why are we singled out? Why aren’t all people with other than S.S. earned pensions cut – or better yet, all treated equally? Seems to be unequal treatment for one group of retirees who have worked, planned and saved just like others with pensions outside Social Security who are not cut for their earned “windfall.”
Tom, I cannot believe what happened to you. I think that those who have earned benefits from social security taken from them, should have their Medicare premiums paid by the government UNTIL the offsets are repealed. That way, the powers that be might be in more of a hurry to repeal these offsets that should never have been enacted as a law in the first place. How this all could have taken place, I just can’t imagine.
In the same situation have worked 18-1/2 years for SIU. Our unit’s work was outsourced to Turkey so was forced into another job. Paid into SS at 23 qualifying years and at least 12 unqualifying years. Worked 2 jobs about 10 years. Was a medical transcriptionist and did not make a lot of money. Found out about Windfall Profit bill when I went to SS office to draw SS. I also was married 18 years then divorced and found out the same law would apply if I were to try and draw his SS. At that time, it was not put on your SS statement you get 3 months before your birthday so no one knew about it until you went to SS office. They (SS) now inserted a sentence to tell you your SS might be less depending on where you draw a pension from. Not looking for a handout just what is right. Thanks
Without question give educators their earned SS money in new tax updates
From the standpoint of yours and mine, the WEP is a total ripoff for Americans dedicated to their work in all areas of our economy, full and part time, by the legislature. Unfair, unAmerican, and overdue for corrections
Will there be any change for those of us who receive no Soc. Sec. from our husband’s benefits because of our PERA benefits?
If my husband passes away before I do, at that point will I receive any SS benefits?
I have often been irritated by wealthy wives who never work a day in their lives, and whose income far exceeds ours, receive SS benefits from their husbands.
This legislation applies to the WEP and the provision you are asking about is the Government Pension Offset or GPO. The legislation does not address the GPO.
More details on the GPO may be found on the PERA website here:
https://www.copera.org/retirees/pera-and-social-security
https://www.copera.org/sites/default/files/documents/5-36.pdf
And on the Social Security Administration’s website here:
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10007.pdf
Thank you for your question.
Katie Kaufmanis – Colorado PERA Public Information Officer
I would like to see something done with the GPO for widows who have PERA, worked for Social Security, and had a spouse who died before reaching full retirement age. I retired from teaching at age 56 to care for my husband who was diagnosed with cancer. He passed away at age 62, and while our mortgage and bills were based on two incomes, I was denied survivors benefits because I had PERA and now struggle financially as a one income retiree. My husband worked and paid into Social Security for 47 years yet that money he paid just went into a social security pot. Seems unfair that I was denied survivor’s benefits because I worked. If we had been divorced and I didn’t have PERA, I would have received his benefits.
I am in agreementM I am55 and currently collect Pera my husband worked and is still paying Social security and right now has 42. Years in and plans to work another 10.if something happens to him Ian I must live on my retirement alone yet we are used to 2 incomes I live a modest lifestyle because I am afraid that I can’t live on my retirement alone especially with health care cost rising.Yet I watch people receive disability benefits who never paid in to it . I have 28 quarters of my own and I would work in a private sector to build it up.But why I will never get back what I already paid into it,.
You will only get the difference of your social security subtracted from what his SS benefits would be. You will not get both.
My husband died in April of 2014. I DO NOT RECEIVE ONE CENT OF HIS SOCIAL SECURITY NOR MINE BECAUSE I RECEIEVE PERA. I also have to pay the entire amount for my MEDICARE! I
TAUGHT SCHOOL IN JEFFERSON COUNTY FOR 25 years and 1 year in Clear Creek. This is a ridiculous law. I am 66 and am still working to meet my bills. I have worked since age 16 and paid into social security.
i feel your pain. i retired from school system with 27.5 yrs. i am getting jipped out of 10 yrs of ss . i get only 1 3rd of it. man, who dreams up this nonsense. GOD Bless.
forget it… you won’t receive one penny of your husband’s social security. My husband died
a year ago April 2014. I GOT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of his SS (or mine) because I get Pera… taught school for 26 years. I worked at many other jobs and paid into SS. I’m 66 now and still teaching (substituting) to make ends meet)…What a joke!
Willa,THANK YOU for your comment about lazy wives (never working) and receiving more from their husbands SS benefits than people who have worked long and hard for it
Thank you, I worked for 25 years in a school cafeteria (obviously making very little money) so I could be
home with my school age children. I then retired and went to work in the private sector to make more money
to help put my children through college. I have been at this job paying social security for sixteen years , I hope
to retire in four years I will be 67 but it isn’t sounding good for me. My friends who never worked are
retiring with half of their husbands social security benefits. Can’t anyone see how wrong this is. I just want
what is mine, nothing more.
I didn’t earn a lot of money in my younger years but I really felt cheated when I began working for a PERA affiliate and learned that my SS would be adjust (WEP) for that reason. Luckily I earned enough to cover my cost for Medicare and a little to put in savings to help cover cost of property insurance & taxes. WEP is really a punishment for working more than one venue to prepare for retirement.
Finally some common sense!
Agreed! I was shocked to learn recently that much of my hard earned Social Security related benefits would be reduced as a result of my taking a job (even if short term) within the Colorado state employment system. Working 15 years under the Social Security system, and then working 15 years within the Pera system, I should be able to collect the full amounts from both systems; not be penalized as the current laws and WEP are defined.
You are SO right. I worked for 16 years under state government and 17 years under the social security system. BUT when I retired from a state college, I learned that my SS benefits would be cut by 50%. The government now owes me thousands because I receive only one half that i earned. This WEP is not only UNFAIR, I believe this ‘law’ to be illegal as well. I cannot understand why thousands of affected former workers who earned their SS benefits plus small pensions from state government, do not band together and take this to a higher authority. This WEP has been on the books now for 32 years. When are we going to wake up and smell the coffee. This whole movement if the government does not get enough support from the powers that be, needs to go higher. And I hope it does. There are people working at the age of 80 and beyond due to this horrible offset and it needs to be repealed and we, the people need to band together and see that it happens. The man who posted that its a ‘scam’ is right. It is a scam.
Hi, I hope you pass bill hb 711. My friend retired from United Airlines and gets Uniteds retirement
Pay plus full social security. But because I was a school teacher for Colorado I get Colorado retirement pay but only 1/2
social security from my previous social security retail job. That’s not fair, I don’t think.
Thanks, Randy
Randy, not only is it unfair to just ‘take’ the benefits that these people earned, I believe it was illegal to make this a law in the first place. It needs to be repealed NOW. The sad, horrible thing about it is that hardly anyone affecged by the WEP Offset knew about it before they retired or learned of it right before they retired. That is secretive. This WEP needs to be repealed and our representatives should be working on having it repealed. It should never have become a law in the first place and if it were examined through higher authority eyes, I believe they would admit, it should never have been made a law with a complicated formula. No one could ever figure out the formula, because it was a formula that was not supposed to be figured out. Contact your congressmen and legislators. Its long overdue (32 years overdue) to be exact.
Would that mean I a Pera retiree who has no social security would get half of my husband”social security upon his death?’
Hi Janie, your question is about the GPO which this legislation does not cover.
More details on the GPO may be found on the PERA website here:
https://www.copera.org/retirees/pera-and-social-security
https://www.copera.org/sites/default/files/documents/5-36.pdf
And on the Social Security Administration’s website here:
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10007.pdf
Thank you for your question.
Katie Kaufmanis – Colorado PERA Public Information Officer
YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ONE CENT OF YOUR HUSBAND’S SOCIAL SECURITY IF HE DIES AND YOU RECEIVE PERA. I KNOW THIS FIRST HAND!!!!!
This is’ and I do agree with Anne Sandler, that this subject is way over due. We baby boomers as we are refered to, has put in many years of working, and paying into OUR SOCIAL SECÛRTY.
When we retire we are penalized and kicked to the curb. We are told that we can’t and will not receive Our social security because it is NO longer ours. We are are told that it will be given to those who are not working, imagraints that come to live here, etc. We have worked half our lives with plans to retire and enjoy the rest of our lives before we die just to have our money given to those who live on the system. Just like our servicemen returning home for risking their lives keeping our USA safe just to be told they can’t receive their social security. They also got kicked to the curb.
The data on immigrants (check your spelling) and paying taxes is mixed. They do not just live off the system. Almost all Americans were immigrants at some time. You throw everyone under the bus with your biases here. This is not the forum for those comments. Don’t like my response? Sorry, but I am a teacher and feel obligated to call on speech like this when I see it.
Thank you for your response to Victoria.
I couldn’t agree with you more ladies. I feel like I am going to barely make and have earned the little I will be getting. I am 64 yrs. old can’t even think about retirement for at least 5 – 7 yrs due to being low man in the state systems payroll and then they want my little bit of SS on top of it. I will still have a mortgage to pay due to death and illnesses I have had to pay because my family members couldn’t. I will never turn my back on family and know my retirement is going to be payday to payday. But it is mine. Give us a break, we earned it.
Victoria, sending you the post of another person who tells it like it really is. I think he hits the nail on its head. I feel that the law is patently illegal. Here it is: If a person like myself was mandated to pay into the Federal Employees Retirement Fund at the rate of 7% of my income with every paycheck I was compelled to do so. I did not have the option of not paying into that retirement plan. In 1983 I was given the option of paying Social Security and contributing to the Thrift Savings Plan. Unfortunately there was not enough information about the change and I opted to stay in the old CRS plan. I retired from the Federal Government early and took a very reduced annuity. Now I am over 66 and only get a very minimum amount from Social Security even though I have paid into Social Security for more years than a lot of people. The Windfall Provision is a scam. People on welfare never pay into any Social Security Plan and get more benefits from the system I pay into and they essentially get more undeserved money from the Federal Government than do I who happens to be a contributor to SS and to a person who has been a civil servant form most of my life. Repeal this awful scam of a law.
My pension was reduced because of WEP in 1988. I have worked every year to achieve the substantial earnings each year to qualify me for enough pension to retire. Every year I have had to make appointment with social security to prove that I met the income level. I always had to wait until the next year to get the amount owed. This year I did my taxes as early as possible in order to prove my income. I was turned away from the clerk at the front desk, after waiting 3 hours in hard chairs, and seeing others that came in after me tended to and going away smiling. The clerk looked a long time at the screen, then went to the back, came out and told me I could write to my congressman but looked like I would not get an increase for 2014. She said, there had been many changes, too hard to compute. I left very confused, angry and upset. I called another city nearby, who took me. I waited a long time, and finally at last they took me. The agent looked at her computer screen a long time , did not discuss what she was doing, then went to the back. She was gone long time. She finally spoke to me and told me I would have to wait until November to get the appointment, to let me know how much increase for 2014. ( this was in 2015) . I believe the pay increase will be retro-active, but I am entitled to know how much. I am very worried the government will find another way to cheat me.
My pension covers my Medicare payment. I also pay from my pay check. Before I retired from civil service (CRS) they were taking out of my check ( I can prove it) for Medicare. When I spoke to on-line help in Virginia, I was told it was not being duplicated, that it was a part of the WEP program, and not being paid twice. I have proof it was being paid twice. What kind of a law is this anyway? Why is Medicare being charged twice. My checks prior to civil service took it out along with the social security, and I was told I had all my social security covered as a civilian before I went to work for civil service. I have obeyed all the rules, but feel like I have been scammed!
Seems that the government took a simple program and turned it into a nightmare.
The social security system is abused by too much government dipping into it and changing the rules to make it a welfare program that was not the intent.. The government should leave the welfare programs to the state level, and not force people to give to it via social security.
If you donate to the welfare programs you get a tax break, this way we get a cut in our pension, not a tax break.
This is long overdue!! This has been such an unfair situation for a long time!! If someone has worked and contributed to Social Security through the years they are entitled to the benefits of Social Security at the time of their retirement. Some states allow this, not Colorado . Career military veterans who retire get a pension and full Social Security benefits. Why not career teachers?
Yes, long overdue!!!! Many state employees worked in private sector before AND after civil service. They’ve EARNED a full social security benefit.
A bit confused, if we are receiving our small amount of Social Security and PERA benefits, would we see an increase in Social Security? I’m 66 years old.
It seems this only applies to people who turn 62 in 2016. For the rest of us, things stay the same.
Ken, From the Fact Sheet from Congressman’s Brady’s Office:
“Retired public servants currently subject to the WEP – and those who turn age 62 before December 31, 2016 – will see their Social Security benefits increased by an estimated 32% according to the Social Security Actuary’s office. That’s an average increase of $1,034 a year, which means an additional $20,000 over the lifetime of an average retiree.”
Katie Kaufmanis – Colorado PERA Public Information Officer
I read the age to be: age 62 “after” 2016 not before December 2016. Since I just started working for Jeffco 3 months ago and turned 62 this January, that means that WEP would mess up my Social Security retirement if I understand this correctly.
Katie, I would like to know why the workers who paid into social security all the years they did, many 15 years and beyond, would only be eligible to receive 32% more, when they have had thousands of dollars taken from their earned benefits for years. for some who retired maybe 14-15 years ago. They are owed thousands of dollars because these were earned benefits they were entitled to. Could you give me an answer if you are aware. Why wouldn’t they begin to receive finally just exactly the benefits they had already earned by working under the social security system for so many years. Shouldn’t they simply receive the benefits they were entitled to all along, but due to the WEP offset, (32 years and counting) they have been denied their earned benefits. Shoudlnt’ they begin to receive what they were supposed to have been receiving all along?
Hello Trish,
This is federal legislation, so I am not fully aware of all the details. I would encourage you to contact your Senator and Congressman/Congresswoman and let them know that you support this legislation and ask your questions about the specifics of the bill.
Ms. Kaufmanis,
The current batch of reprehensible individuals residing in the bowels of the Federal Government are looking to exhaust
the SSA trust fund as soon as possible in order to transfer retirement planning to the robber barons of Wall Street sooner rather than later. The sooner the trust fund is perceived to be exhausted the sooner the financial barons start
making more and more money. I am currently hit by the WEP. I loose 2/3’s of my promised SSA benefits per year. But
in the long run the people struggling to find work and have any chance of a decent retirement by relying on SSA to be
there when they reach retirement age will be ruined by this ploy to enrich the 1% even further. Sad…. for sure.
Yes, it always seemed unfair that after paying into our Scocial Security system I would not see any benefit because of receiving a PERA benefit. I not only worked a social secutity job 10 years prior to my PERA employement but also almost all of my current 24 years with PERA and will work my other job upto and likely beyond my PERA retirement in about 6 years. The two employments are completely different. I feel if I paid all the money into social security for 40 years I should see my fair share of benefit just like anybody else who paid into it. I have worked extremely hard to prepare for retirement and should be able to receive my social security benefits.
So very true linda , everyone worked hard for those years before / after, becoming astate employees also, why should we be penalized, not fAir.thanks
I was paying social security for 22 years before I became a teacher, and some years my pay was so low that it “won’t count” even though it was the wage I was living (and saving) on, due to WEP. We EARNED our social security.
How many people worked in PERA for years before receiving info about WEP? And when you found out- you couldn’t believe it was possible!
I always thought the term WINDFALL to be a misnomer…….
Let’s end this unfair practice.
“Windfall” is not a misnomer. It’s a slap in the face, an insult, and a misdirection of appalling proportions. Thanks, PERA, for taking a stand on this and leading organizing action. Current and future PERA recipients, if you care let your Representatives know. They won’t pass this just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Nancy, I couldn’t agree more with the completely inappropriate use of the word “windfall.” For taxation purposes, this term is usually reserved for those earning a drastically higher income than we of the yearly pittance monopoly. Good grief!
I have a question about the set age to receive the described benefit. It says it is for those who are 62 in 2016. How does this affect those who are currently passed the age of 62? There was a comment of different formulas to be applied to different age groups. Could you please clarify?
Vicki,
From the Fact Sheet from Congressman’s Brady’s Office:
“Retired public servants currently subject to the WEP – and those who turn age 62 before December 31, 2016 – will see their Social Security benefits increased by an estimated 32% according to the Social Security Actuary’s office. That’s an average increase of $1,034 a year, which means an additional $20,000 over the lifetime of an average retiree.”
Katie Kaufmanis – Colorado PERA Public Information Officer
From the explanation it looks as if there is a “donut hole” for those who are not currently retired but are already over 62. How does this legislation affect them?
I am just now looking into retirement and I am shocked that everything I paid into social security will be reduced JUST because I took a job working for the state. How does that make sense?
Sue,
From the WEP Fact Sheet created by the Social Security Administration:
“Before 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. Congress
passed the Windfall Elimination Provision to remove that advantage.”
This legislation would change the way the WEP is calculated for public employees, like PERA members, who worked in jobs that were not subject to Social Security contributions.
Katie Kaufmanis – Colorado PERA Public Information Officer
After I retired and began receiving PERA benefits, I looked into different non-PERA employment. Although I’ve been working since I was 16 years old, mainly under Social Security, I was aware of the WEP. I might as well take the $$ that any non-PERA job would deduct for Social Security and just toss them out the window. I would receive no benefit to my Social Security from having this money withdrawn, due to the WEP. Since I already have 40 quarters in the Social Security system, there’s no point in working a Social Security job:(
IS THERE ANY CHANCE WHATEVER THIS COULD APPLY RETOACTIVELY-I WAS A VICTIM OF THE WINDFALL ALSO-
CHUCK ABDELNOUR,SAN DIEGO CITY CLERK EMERITUS,CMC.JD
You state that the WEP will be reduced by “up to one third for current retirees”, not eliminated. We need to all write to our congressmen, and the authors of this bill, to request that they change the bill and have it eliminate WEP completely. As written, the bill only means $133 per month maximum as the limit on WEP is $396 per month. Now $396 is talking some real change. I knew WEP was coming but that doesn’t make it right. I paid fully into each, I should get my full benefits back from each.
I agree Larry! WEP is robbing me of $366 per month. That’s $4392 a year. Perhaps that’s not a lot to those writing the law but it is a lot to many of us. I’m trying to get an appointment with my Congressman. I’ve already sent a letter without satisfaction. We’ve paid in as required by law, we should receive all that WEP has taken away! We all need to make a lot of noise to get this unfair law totally repealed.
YOU ARE RIGHT LARRY,
I agree with Larry. Why would they eliminate the WEP only for those who become eligible in 2016 and not for those of us who have already been forced to relinquish $396/month of our earned Social Security benefits for the years we have already been retired? Reducing this by 32% would help, but why not 100%? What’s the difference between us and those who are soon to retire? Doesn’t seem fair to me either.
It does seem long overdue to make this change. All kinds of people who have all kinds of additional pension/retirement income have not had to forego any of their social security benefit — only those of us in government plans.
Katie, I am currently 64 and still working. I am drawing PERA from Colorado for the work I did there. I am not currently paying into PERA or any other state retirement fund, nor am I drawing SS yet. When I do finally retire and draw against SS (my husband is 3 years younger than I am), how will this proposed WEP adjustment affect me, potentially?
Thanks!
note that I have paid into SS before, during, and now, after my time at a state retirement fund position.
Hi Ronnie,
Unfortunately, we at PERA are not experts in Social Security. Because every member and retiree has a unique situation and this is proposed legislation, I don’t have the answer for you. You should use the calculators on the Social Security website to determine how the WEP will impact your particular circumstance.
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/anyPiaWepjs04.html
Some of us started teaching in another state where we were required to pay into a state retirement fund and into social security. In Pennsylvania teachers get both and I believe it is the same in Ohio. Colorado needs to give us out full social security benefits in light of the fact we took a huge pay cut to work here and get a modest increase each year in retirement. The legislators passed a pay increase for themselves last week, our governor has not as yet signed it. The cost of living in Colorado keeps increasing faster than our meager annual increase especially in the housing area. We continue to fall behind. I have waited to sign up for social security because the WEP would have wiped most of it out.
I am 63 and have not taken my social security benefit yet. If the law passes and I wait until I am 66 would I receive the full amount?
Sara,
Please use the WEP calculator on the Social Security website to determine how the WEP will effect you. We cannot predict what your Social Security benefit might be if this legislation were to be enacted.
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/anyPiaWepjs04.html
It is well overdue to address this distressing issue. Nothing justifies reducing full social security benefits for those who qualify for the SS benefit regardless of the type of employment someone chose in their work career. The point is SS was deducted from ones paycheck at the understanding that one would receive the full SS benefit at the time of qualified retirement age. Choosing another employment along the way such as for the State (Pera) does not, and should not justify reducing anyones full SS benfit.
Please repeal this law. I believe it was implimented in 1983. The only thing this law has acomplished is preventing Seniors from retiring.
Simply put, I earned both retirement benefits, and I should receive both! End this unfair practice.
You Rock Karen, right on ! Best Wishes, Geo.
we played by the rules and need to be paid by the rules we started with. it is just that simple,not all that hard to understand even for congress and who ever.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with some postings. Although I would also like to receive the “full” Social Security benefit rather than having it reduced by PERA the fact of the matter is that during my PERA years I did not pay into Social Security. Question: Why would I be entitled to the “full” benefit? Receiving a “full” SS benefit while not paying into SS will require more money to be put into the SS Trust Fund which is already going broke. Where is that money to come from? Higher SS deductions from paychecks; how much and on who? Higher income taxes to pump into General Fund to support the increased cost: how much and on who? If a person is retired and not receiving a paycheck there can be no additional SS deduction. Do taxes go up on retirement income and/or capital gains? If so, how much. The money has to come from somewhere I can’t figure out where it is going to come from.
George, It is my understanding that everyone’s Social Security is calculated by how many years and how much they paid in. Anyone paying in long enough to earn 40 quarters is considered fully insured. My “full” benefit from my 40 quarters might be less than your “full” benefit if my salary was less than yours thus I paid in less than you. My question is why does it make any difference as to when I paid in to SS to earn my 40 quarters? Whether I earned them before working for PERA or while working for PERA they are still my earned quarters and I should receive my “full” benefit based on “my” work history. My understanding, my opinion.
I worked as a state employee during the day and worked at night and after I l retired from the state. I was a single parent. I have been penalized on both my own social security that I paid into and I completely lost my survivors benefits because of my pera retirement. I was penalized 2 times because of my pera retirement. Who gets the money I should have received? Unfair practice.
Willa, I paid SS taxes for 15 years before becoming a PERA employee in 1969. I assume the proposed law would not apply to me. No? It looks like to me that the law would apply only to those retiring in 2016 or later. IOW, politely stated, I’m out of luck.
Thanks so much for the info. I just recently retired and learned 400 would be withheld from my SS. To have less withheld would be greatly appreciated. I have written my congressmen in the past regarding this and appreciated your support.
If this passes, how will future retirees’ SS benefits be affected? I’m almost 58 years old and planning to retire from PERA employment at 65 or 66. I also work a second job with 1099 earnings.
The Max WEP is (was) $309.00 when I retired in 2003. So if they want to make it right for us then why only go for a 1/3 reduction of it for past retirees, why not go for the whole $309.00. Bring that up also when you write your U.S. Senator or Congressman to ask their support for the bill please.
And further, why not push to back date the elimination or reduction of the WEP for all past retirees and then for the SS Department to refund the total underpayment over the years since retirement to all SS beneficiaries based on the new (if any) provisions or lowering of the WEP.
Mention that also to you Senator or Congressman . Nothing to loose, and then we might, as a minimum get the one third ($103.00) reduction as proposed and even some back pay also.
It was explained to me that the WEP was to make up for the built in “extra ” benefit for low income SS beneficiaries . So a PERA retire comes in and applies for SS and it looks like he is poor to SS based on his work history under SS and what he may have paid in while covered by Social Security , and deserves the full SS benefit including the extra low income provision of $309.00 built in at the low end. But when they see that in actuality the retiree has a higher income (from a PERA benefit) that he did not pay SS on and they say that he / She should not receive the so called built in extra benefit for the very low income SS beneficiary. Thus the WEP reduction of $309.00 MAX.
That’s their reasoning for the WEP “Reduction ” in one’s SS benefit. I’m Just trying to Explain what their reasoning is for the WEP. I don’t like it either because it took half my SS benefit away from me.
I would love to see the WEP totally eliminated for current and future retirees. I don’t understand why someone currently retired only sees an increase of about a third, yet a Dec 3016 retiree will get 1/2 more.
Can you again explain who this would benefit? I began adult work in 1973 with SS until 2007 when I began working for PERA. I have 23 years of significant earnings under SS. I currently plan to retire in 2016. Will this bill benefit me?
YOu couldn’t be more right on. If one were to work at a private company, and they gave one a pension, a hearty one at that like P&G for instance, the worker would be alloed to keep their pension and also social security. We were not given an opportunity to pay into social security while working for state government. We cannot be faulted for that. Therefore, we should have been allowed to keep the ss benefits we earned whether we paid into ss or not. If we were given an opportunity, but didn’t pay, that would be completely different and we wouldn’t have been permitted to do that anyway. I believe these workers like myself should be reinstated with the benefits we earned, and not 32% – they are doing something else that doesn’t seem to make sense or is fair.
WEP IS EFFECTIVELY A MEANS TAX that is unequally and discrimantly applied to only those who have earned Social Security benefits and have also earned significant additional pension income via a government derived retirement program. Social Security justifies the WEP means test tax by claiming that people who have significant seperate pension income other than Social Security do not truly NEED Social Security. That explanation can be found in the WEP government booklet and Social Security Record. Social Security thereby concludes that it is unfair to ask taxpayers to pay Social Security benefits to those who do not “truly” need them even though they have paid into the system, have earned Social Security benefits, and would otherwise be entitled to Social Security benefits according to the standard Social Security benefit formula.
However, this reasoning and rational is not universally employed with out discrimination as Social Security law originally required. Example. If a person has no seperate and/or additional earned pension benefits apart from Social Security, but happens by the grace of good fortune or Gods will to be very wealthy (whether by virtue of inheritance, or investment success, or income property, or real estate appreciation, or significant post retirement business income, or perhaps enjoys the luxury of all of these blessings of significant wealth) and has also contributed to and earned full Social Security benefits, the WEP means test is NOT applied and they receive the full Social Security benefits that they have earned and are entitled to. Clearly that person does not need Social Security benefits any more than a government pensioner or PERA member who has also earned Social Security benefits. The WEP means tax is applied to one Social Security beneficiary on the grounds of lack of need, but not to other beneficiaries on lack of need. It is therefore a discriminatory tax that is levied on only those who receive significant retirement income apart from Social Security that is derived in part or in full from a lawfull and earned government based retirement pension program. Thus WEP is directed discrimanantively only at certain and specific government employees. The only justifiable rational for a WEP means test tax would be to apply it universally to every Social Security beneficiary via a universally applied needs test that is based upon some externally derived notion of social justice income limitations formula.
The problem with supporting HR 5797, which only reduces the WEP means test tax by about 1/3, is that it continues to grant credibility to the politically derived social justice redistribution of wealth philosophy that calls for limiting contractually derived government imcome on the basis of personal wealth and on an admittedly discriminating basis as regards those who will be granted an exception to remaining WEP reductions in Social Security benefits.
HR 5797 may slightly reduce the impact of the WEP ruling but it does nothing to eliminate discrimination in the application of the remaining remnants of the WEP ruling.
The WEP Means Tax ruling should either be ended entirely or replaced by a Universal Social Security means tax applied to all Social Security beneficiaries. Then let the law makers proposing such a Universal SS Means Test suffer the voters reactions to butchering of the origina intent and rational for a Social Security Contract With the American people.
Sincerely, G. M. Davis
It doesn’t have to be “significant” pension income. The WEP applies no matter how small it is, and by small I mean a couple of hundred dollars a month. The Reagan administration tried to demonize public workers by claiming all of them earned huge pensions, so let’s penalize them. However, hardly anybody does, especially in this day and age. People who have 25 or 30 years in a public pension that doesn’t pay into SS are rare, and those people aren’t likely to have earned the 40 quarters to get SS in the first place. Mid-career changers are completely screwed by this vile law; furthermore, they have to pay income taxes on the pensions.
Karen Sullivan summarized my entire epistle in two succinct and logical sentences. Some people know how to write. Bravo Karen !
I totally agree with Karen S. and Deborah!. When you work a job, you deserve the full retirement from both jobs. Your social security benefits should not be decreased because of PERA. That can mean poverty for many people fortunately, of which, I am not one of those. I do know those who are. I am 66 and stopped work at 65. It should be retroactive.
I would be EVER so happy this issue were resolved; if I hadn’t paid in, I would not expect my full SS, but I did so why should I have reduced benefits????
I worked 30 plus years and all but 15% were with companies or school systems that took out for SS. Because I worked with a Colorado school system for 5 years, SS reduced my SS by 33%. My pension in Colorado was based on those 5 years of work and 7 purchased years. I appealed but SS denied me. The based their denial on my 12 years of work credit for PERA. The 7 years I purchased were 7 years that I worked in Tennessee school systems where I paid SS. SS seemed not to be able to have a WEP formula for this, so they reduced my SS from around $1200 a month to $800 a month. Similar situation with my husband who worked in the private sector and for the US Government. His SS was subjected to WEP, also. Over the next 20 years we will have been subjected to a reduction in our benefits of over $100,000 no including interest or investment return. We both worked several years after 66 in order to boost our SS benefits.
Thank you, making some retroactive would be wonderful
SS retirement is based on the highest wage received in a certain period of time. As I was in the era of low wages (but also low cost of living) the highest wage I made during the 60-75 era was less than $1 in most businesses. When I retired from the State, I purchased Social Security units for $10,000 which allowed me to retire in 1996 @ age 57. I had 15 years with the State at that time. I was then cut on receipt of SS payments by 2% per year from age 62. Anyway, I now receive $31 monthly in addition to the payment of Medicare Insurance. I would have been better served to have taken 1/2 of my husbands since I had to work 2 more quarters after I retired to fulfill my 40 quarter SS requirement. More would be nice.
I worked full-time at various private companies and paid in from Jan. 1, 1968 through August 31, 1985 (17 years). I want to look forward to getting full social security benefits and not reduced because of my PERA. I need all the help I can get, long overdue.
I retired earlier than planned due to a major medical issue that I knew would just not allow me to be all I had been and wanted to be if I continued to work. I worked 30 years under Social Security and also had an earned pension with state government. Because I retired early, I had to take the “early retirement” penalty on my Social Security earnings, 25%. Then, when they worked up the pitiful little remainder, they took the WEP and reduced my Social Security benefit by another 15% because they said in three of my 30 years under Social Security, I didn’t make enough to “qualify” those years for “benefits.” Since the reason I didn’t make enough was because I was one of those “very low-paid” people during those three years that Social Security claims to “protect!” At any rate, because of major surgery triggering early retirement and because I didn’t make a bundle for three of my 30 Social Security years, I lost 40% of what would have been my retirement income from Social Security. I could have used the 15% from the WEP elimination, especially as I saw my health insurance premiums go into the $1,000+ per month range.
This proposed “fix” is not a done deal. My congressman’s reply to my letter was that he understands my concern but basically can’t do anything about it. Same response from my senator. Sounds like neither one of them have heard about this new proposal. I haven’t yet found a way to correspond with the members of the Ways and Means Committee or Congressman Brady. If you go to their website it says talk with your own state representatives. We need to all write letters to our state representatives demanding that WEP be totally repealed. Making up for money we’re already lost isn’t going to happen. However, perhaps if we make enough noise to the right people we can get the full amount of SS that we have earned starting with near future checks. We have worked long and hard to earn the 40 quarters required to receive a full benefit. I’m finding that a lot of people do not know about WEP. I’m considering writing letters to talk show hosts to try and get the word out. Maybe if enough of us did that we could get satisfactory results. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”. Let’s find out. Just complaining to each other will accomplish nothing. I can’t believe that WEP has been in effect since 1983 and nothing has been done to repeal it.
Great input to you all…..bottom line for me, I am being penalized by my government because I have a strong work ethic. Marines, Coast Guard, and all the SS contribution time in my work history is a liability to my retirement? It’s absurd and incredibly unfair to a hard working public servant.
H.R. 711, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2015
I have worked most of my life (25 years) under Social Security. I am currently collecting 65% of my benefit because I also receive a pension from PERA. I do not feel this is fair. I paid the money into Social Security and should receive my full Social Security benefit. HR 711 would correct this problem. Contact Scott Tipton and request that he vote for it.
Jack, We need to know if H.R. 711 actually would correct the problem. If you read the text of the actual bill it is difficult to understand because of all the jargon. The summary seems to say that those of us who are already retired would have our WEP reduced by only 1/3rd. Using me for an example: They have cheated me out of $366 per month. This bill as written would get me $122 – they would still be cheating me out of $244 per month. We should request that our representatives amend this bill to totally repeal WEP so that we receive our full SS. I am really tired of my hard earned money being spent on salaries of overpaid federal employees who also receive extravagant bonuses and many of them not doing their job while my hard work is rewarded by reducing my EARNED social security.
I am always shocked at how few people are aware of this ill conceived law. Several men I know, like a person above, drove a school bus for a few years after retiring from good jobs, trying to boost their retirement security. Moms of students who thought teaching would be a good job after the kids got older had no clue about this. What’s more, they wouldn’t believe me when I warned them! “They wouldn’t do that,” one insisted. A teacher at our school lost her husband in a tragic accident. She was stunned to learn that she would not get a cent of the SS that he had worked years for, all because she had PERA.
It was only through my involvement with CEA and the local association that I knew about it, but it is not on the radar for many who come to public education later in life. I hope this will be passed. It is, and always has been, grossly unfair.
I’m posting this several times. I retired after 26 years of teaching in Colorado and receive PERA.
My husband died in April of 2014. I DO NOT RECEIVE ONE PENNY OF HIS SOCIAL SECURITY… ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! I also receive NOTHING of my own social security which I paid into for the many, many years I worked in “regular jobs”. To top it off, I have to pay for my MEDICARE because I don’t get my social security in which Medicare USUALLY comes our of. THIS IS THE BIGGEST RIP OFF EVER AND EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER MUST BE MADE AWARE OF THIS! TEACHERS IN OTHER STATES RECEIVE A FULL PENSION AND SOCIAL SECURITY THEY EARNED. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH COLORADO???
There was a ‘get around’ on the WEP and GPO. In Texas where state employees did not pay into SS same as Colo., there were dual employers. These employers paid both Texas state retirement as well as SS. You could resign from your state job, get hired by a dual-paying employer before retiring. Then you retired from the dual paying employer. The WEP and GPO rules did not apply to you because you had paid into both retirement systems for one day of work. Texas school teachers paid a fee of $500 to Coleman School District, a dual employer, did a day of menial labor (scrubbing floors, cutting up chicken in the lunch room) and scooted off to retirement heaven. So we in Colorado got screwed by not having that information back when. Grapevine says the “back door” process was primarily for politician’s friends and family. Too bad we did not hear about it. I retired in 2009 and WEP applied to me with 23 years of SS paid in. Any bill passed should be retroactive for all of us.
I just read where there is another bill that has been introduced – H.R. 973 – Social Security Fairness Act of 2015 /114 Congress. It would totally repeal WEP & GAO. That sounds like the one we need to push for. Look it up.
I wish I had known about H.R. 973. I just sent out an extended email asking people to contact their house representative and senators to support H.R. 711! Any relief would be welcome to this unfair discrimination against state employees.
Don’t be such a bunch of looters and moochers. After not paying any Social Security and then getting a deal better than the completely bankrupt scheme that is Social Security, there is no reason to be double dipping. If it is so important to be getting the welfare benefit that Social Security has become, you should immediately demand your PERA or any other alternative be divested and included in the existing system just like everyone else. I have 10 years of State and Federal service and 6 years of Military plus working (and paying taxes) since I was 14. You people are simply thieves. How dare you whine and cry over getting money from a system that has been destroyed by a bunch of whiny, greedy bureaucrats and politicians. Do yourselves a favor and save this for when I run for office to stop your mooching and looting of taxpayers!
Dan, I am not a moocher or a looter. I am a taxpayer and have been since I was 17. You, apparently, do not understand the problem. I can’t speak for everyone, but I DID pay into Social Security for 25 years starting in 1967. I had no choice it was required by law. I eventually accepted a better paying job which REQUIRED me to pay into the state retirement fund. I had no choice. I had no say about how the money that was taken out of my salary was invested by the state or by the federal government. Is it my fault that the system is screwed up? I WORKED, I PAID in, I EARNED the 40 plus quarters required to receive a Social Security retirement benefit only to learn that half of it would be taken away. I am not whining. I am not greedy. I am not asking for any more than I earned. I’m simply tired of the Federal Government giving taxpayers hard EARNED money to lazy, unproductive people through welfare programs. I’m simply tired of the Federal Government paying high salaries and bonuses to federal employees who should instead be given pink slips. I’m simply tired of politicians being able to vote themselves enormous salaries and cheating me out of my Social Security, which I earned. You can DARE me all you want. I’ll continue to work for hardworking taxpayers. BTW, thanks for your military service.
Dan, with 16 years of government employment you surely must benefit from some sort of government pension plan, or will in the future. Seems to me that you shouldn’t be throwing rocks here. BTW; Before you run for office you might consider a quick refresher in “Anger Management 101”. I fear that if you don’t, you’ll expose yourself as the whiny, greedy kind of guy that you appear to be.
No pension should have anything to do with any other pension plan. It should be illegal. It seems to be a legal way of co-mingling funds. My fear is that if they do away with WEP, SS will up the cost of Medicare to make up for it.
I paid Social Security taxes for a very long time (58 + years), Dan and am not a moocher!! It’s none of your business what other work I did and what benefit from it I earned.
Thank you, Michael. I paid into SS for 30 years myself, and it is unfair that I get cheated out of my earned benefit because I also worked for somebody else. I also would not get one dime of a widow’s benefit if my husband pre-deceases me, because of the GPO. Since his social security benefit is higher than mine, I presently get “robbed” of about $250 a month, and by not being “entitled” to a widow’s benefit (43 years married and still counting), I would lose a solid $600 a month. Others aren’t being penalized for having more than one source of retirement funds to live on – oh, yeah, we’re those “lazy, no-account gubment wukkers.” I many times offered the challenge to those who mock us – come do my job for one week, with nothing more than the equipment I have to work with, no larger staff than I have to accomplish the tasks – and see if you can do HALF of what I accomplish in the course of my work day – which, by the way, is normally far more than 8 hours, and with no overtime added to my paycheck. I never had a single taker in all those years to my challenge.
Logene, if you paid social security taxes for 30 years the only way you would be affected by the WEP is if you were working at very low wage positions. So either something is wrong with your comments or perhaps you were not actually as productive as you say.
When I click on the link in the above article for H.R.711, nothing has happened to this Bill since February 4 when it was “Introduced in House” and “Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means”. Don’t hold your breath thinking anything will come of this. Looks like old news to me.
Mike, I think that’s why we have to be proactive! There have been similar bills presented to the Ways and Means committee for several years. However, the bills never get out of committee. Just complaining amongst ourselves will get nothing done. I have an appointment with a congressman, unfortunately not until late June. I’m also trying to get an appointment with a senator. I’ve recently written letters to the congressmen and senators who represent the district that I’m in. I’ve also written letters to several talk show hosts. No one seems to care. That’s why I’m meeting with my representatives face to face. My next letter will be to out of state friends who are also affected by this unfair law. My hope is that they will contact people in their state. I wonder how many people are actually meeting with elected officials, writing letters, etc. Are you? Our elected officials are making 6 figure incomes, vote themselves raises, and have no worries about their retirement. Unless we make this rip-off known to more people and continue to let our elected officials hear from us, we’ll never get the money that we have worked for. It’s going to take more than a few people being proactive. This WEP bill was passed in 1983. Why hasn’t it been repealed before now? Probably because most retirees have done nothing but complain to each other hoping someone else will do the work and all will benefit. That hasn’t worked out so well. We certainly will not accomplish our goal by doing nothing or giving up.
I have been feeling the loss of social security benefits ever since I retired. At age 73 I probably won’t be around long enough to see any of my earned social security benefits that presently are denied to me come my way; however, I feel it is unconscionable that senators, congressmen(women), etc., seem to have no problem receiving full social security benefits and lucrative employment benefits as government employees. The WEP needs to be repealed, and we retirees who earned enough social security benefits should receive the entire amount to which we are entitled.
This legislation will never pass. Where is SS going to get the extra money? They’re already projecting deficits to SS Disability by 2017, and SS Retirement is not far behind. I’d love to get the full SS benefit I have earned; but not from a federal government that is already recklessly overspending, and not by putting an even greater burden on future generations. Dream if you want to but this legislation is just being proposed to score political points.
I signed up this summer for SS. I asked the SS agent about this bill…he had no knowledge of it. I am glad PERA brought it to our attention; however where do we go from here with this information to move it forward?
I worked in the private sector for 18 years before working 24 years at a public school. I was aware of the windfall, but it still seems very wrong; my SS benefits were cut by 60%.
Why isn’t WEP and GPO Acts unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court as was the case in
Illinois with pensions. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of all public pensioners. The
Illinois Supreme Court mirrors the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe it’s time to file a complaint with
the U.S. Inspector General in regards to the “unconstitutionality” of Social Securities WEP and
GPO Acts… He’s the individual that should render an opinion before it goes before a federal
judge….
It is really difficult for me to understand how so many people can claim they did not know about the WEP. It has been a topic of many bills in congress for years now and every organization with members who are affected has been talking about it. So unless folks are just not paying attention it really so uneducated.
The WEP was put in place to correct an inequity in the social security benefit calculation. You may not like it but it does stop the system from paying more than is deserved to those who chose to work in non-covered employment.
Novus hit the nail on the head. It’s stunning how so few apparently educated folks don’t understand one of the greatest govt programs around, Social Security. It is a social insurance program, not a strictly retirement account or pension.
All this talk about “earning” your SS benefits and “full” SS benefits is silly. I can grant you the argument that it wasn’t your choice not to pay SS taxes under your govt employment. Maybe SS should give you the option to “buy back” all those years by paying both ends of the SS tax, 12.4%. Don’t think they’d have many takers.
Both the WEP and GPO are meant to avoid paying “social insurance” benefits to those who didn’t pay the taxes when employed. Not a perfect system, and I who am being hit by WEP would change some aspects, but the concepts of both laws are rational and not a punishment to anybody.
What is stunning is how little you and Novus know about the actual effects of WEP/GPO.
petition2congress.com
I worked over 20 years in the private sector, paying into SS. the last 10 years I owned the business. I not only paid in as an employee, but also paid as an employer. After I sold my company, I joined my wife teaching school. She had paid into SS as a school teacher in Ks. When we moved to Texas we didn’t pay into SS. Now both of us fall under the WEP ripoff.
Another reason we need term limits for our political representatives that share the same retirement program as us peasants.
Disgusting–Congress should give back to qualifed Americans what truly belongs to them–SS benefits.
Just be glad you get some social security. My generation has to pay in knowing we will get nothing.
These bill to repeal the WEP & GPO have been introduced year after year and never get out of committee. Congress people just introduce these bills to show they’re sympathetic but that’s always the end of it. No vote in the House. No vote in the Senate. They just sit there and go nowhere. We’re being conned.
If the Social Security office would quit giving our hard earned money away to these people who haven’t earned Social Security we will be better off. Here I have all of my quarters and just because I was a teacher the government made it possible for me to receive 562.00 a month. I think this is is pitiful. This is down right legally stealing from the vary people who elected you.
Thank you all for your answers to many of my questions about the Windfall. I worked under social security for several years. Then. I started working in the Ohio School System. I to believed I would get my social security when I retired. I do, $54.00 a month. I was shocked. But I was shocked even more when I found I could not draw on my husbands social security. I have friends and family members who never worked and they draw on their husbands social security.
It seems to me that we have been penalized for choosing to dedicate ourselves to working with our children in the school systems.
We struggle every month to make ends meet and I think this is a dis service to all of us who have served our young citizens. Peace
i feel your pain. i retired from school system with 27.5 yrs. i am getting jipped out of 10 yrs of ss . i get only 1 3rd of it. man, who dreams up this nonsense. GOD Bless.