Washington, D.C. – This week (September 28, 2018) House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-MA) introduced H.R. 6933, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2018. This legislation finally gets rid of Social Security’s Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and replaces it with a new formula that makes sure that teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants receive a Social Security benefit that is based on their actual work history. The legislation reflects ongoing conversations with stakeholders since the introduction of the previous version of the bill in the 114th Congress and is intended to facilitate further discussion and analysis.
Upon introduction of this bill, Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal released the following statement:
“Introduced by the two of us, this bill is intended to provide relief from the WEP for affected individuals in Texas, Massachusetts, and the rest of the country. Workers nationwide pay into Social Security with the expectation that they will receive the benefits they’ve earned when they retire. As we have known for some time, WEP, though well intentioned, has treated many of our public servants unfairly. This legislation is part of continued efforts to ensure that public servants who earn both a Social Security benefit and a pension from a Social Security substitute are treated fairly when it comes to Social Security.
“We know there is room for improvement, and we encourage feedback on the bill as work continues to address the WEP. It’s time to stand up for our teachers, firefighters, and police officers in our states and all across the country.”
Stakeholders are encouraged to send feedback to: WEP.feedback@mail.house.gov
Please let them know how it has hurt you and your fellow Adjuncts. Tell them our pensions are already much lower than our full time teacher counterparts. We need all of what Social Security we have earned.
From https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/bpc-analysis-of-h-r-711-the-equal-treatment-of-public-servants-act/:
“Typically, individuals who worked roughly half of their career in [Social Security] covered employment and half in uncovered employment {such as STRS or PERS] would receive higher benefits under this reform than they would under current law. Conversely, those who have worked 30-35 years in covered employment while also spending some time in uncovered employment would receive modestly lower benefits (as those beneficiaries are currently not impacted by the WEP at all.”
How Does it Work:
Currently, Social Security is calculated only on covered earnings. Non-covered income, like from teaching against which you pay no Social Security tax, is not included. Then, that calculated benefit amount is reduced to offset the pension you receive from non-covered income (such as STRS or PERS). The reduction is capped but can still reduce your Social Security payment by as much as about $430 each month. Under the new system, your Social Security payment is calculated on all of your income, both covered and non-covered. Then, that benefit is reduced proportionally based on the fraction of your total income that was covered.
Mr. Douglas makes a good point that this new legislation hurts people who have more than 30 years of substantial covered employment (along with some non-covered employment) because it eliminates the 30 year rule whereby those folks are exempt from any WEP reduction. So, obviously, that is one thing that should be restored. But there is another current WEP exemption that it repeals, namely, that the WEP reduction cannot be more than 50% of any non-covered pension actually received. This latter provision is also insiduous, because it will mean that millions of people who may at one time in their lives worked just a few years in non-covered employment, and never qualified for a pension based on that employment, will be caught in the WEP web and see their SS benefits reduced. While I am personally somewhat relieved that my benefits will not be affected because I was born prior to January 2, 1963, I still think this is horrible public policy. It will hurt far more future retirees than it helps.