The Social Security Fairness Act has bipartisan support, but time is running out for Senate vote

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CBS News

Updated on: December 6, 2024 / 6:00 PM EST


The House-passed Social Security Fairness Act enjoys rare bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, yet the odds of it getting enacted are growing smaller with each passing day. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are calling on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to schedule a vote on the bill that would expand Social Security benefits to roughly 2.8 million retirees. Schumer, a Democrat and cosponsor of the legislation, could invoke a Senate rule that would skip a committee hearing and send the bill directly to a floor vote by the full Senate.

The legislation would eliminate a provision that cuts Social Security payments to some retirees who also collect a pension from jobs not covered by the retirement program. That includes state and federal workers like teachers, police officers and U.S. postal workers. It would also end a second provision that reduces Social Security benefits for those workers' surviving spouses and family members.

"With just eight legislative days remaining in the 118th Congress, Sen. Schumer, a cosponsor of Senate bill S.597, must now step up and take action. It's time for him to follow through and bring it to the floor for a vote," Shannon Benton executive director of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), told CBS MoneyWatch on Friday.

The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO) "penalize families across the country who worked a public service job for part of their career with a separate pension," Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy told colleagues earlier in the week. When those workers "have second jobs, second careers or get married, they receive less from Social Security than if they had never worked in public service at all. That's not right."

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-security-fairness-act-senate-vote-chuck-schumer/

[moniss]

1. Just like the bipartisan Immigration Reform Bill had

big support. Until it didn't because a certain person named Donald Crumb didn't like it.

[MichMan]

2. Is it true that under this bill, someone who has never paid a dime into SS would be eligible as a spouse?

Example; husband and wife married for decades. He worked for government and was not required to pay into SS, is retired and receiving a nice pension. She worked for the private sector, paid into SS throughout her whole career and also retired.

Is it true that under this bill, on top of his own pension, he would be eligible to collect SS benefits under his spouse, without ever paying into it, while she was still drawing her full amount as well?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. "Is it tue that under this bill, someone who has never paid a dime into SS would be eligible as a spouse?"

A spouse can already get a SS benefit regardless of this bill and a spouse/dependent needs to be designated at some point during the work period (there are income restrictions involved with SS too).

Here is SS's info on that - https://blog.ssa.gov/do-you-qualify-for-social-security-spouses-benefits-2/#:~:text=How%20the%20spouse%27s%20benefit%20is,benefits%20on%20your%20spouse%27s%20record.

This bill is actually addressing the reduction or elimination of the (eligible) SS amount for anyone who actually had a work history where they paid into both a governmental annuity/pension AND SS.

[MichMan]

5. If it is already legal regardless of this bill, it shouldn't be

This bill needs an amendment to prevent the scenario I suggested.

IMO, everyone working should contribute to SS, not having some government employees be exempted from it. Is it good enough for the rest of us, but not them?

[BumRushDaShow]

7. What?

Remember the "pay into" thing is a TAX - "FICA" (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) under the original name of "Social Security" which is -

"OASDI" (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance).

I.e., it is "INSURANCE" like life insurance or car insurance, etc.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751

Other "insurances" can be designated to cover others as "recipients". Social Security is not like an "annuity".

There are millions who pay the FICA tax (including paying it for 40 quarters or more - i.e., "full vested" ) who never reach the age to even collect it (mostly POC), and no one is reimbursing them after they are deceased (if not designated). There are caveats that happen when you designate a spouse/dependent/survivor - i.e., the original contributor has a REDUCED benefit when they retire (even when the spouse is still working and is otherwise "ineligible" ) and that continues if their designated spouse predeceases them.

[Bengus81]

9. Yeah...beat that FACT into the heads of Eloon and his pipsqueak sidekick Vivek....

Remember the "pay into" thing is a TAX - "FICA"

[wishstar]

16. No, a federal retiree cannot get SS on spouse's record if the Fed's own pension is higher

For instance, I am a Federal employee who worked long enough under old Civil Service to draw a Federal pension for which I paid in massive contributions. But before and after my Federal service, I also worked over 10 years paying into Social Security at a high enough pay amount to be eligible for my own Social Security as well. However I am penalized and cannot get as much Social Security as anyone else who worked and paid into SS because of the windfall offset provision. So if this bill passes, my SS will go up from a measly $45 or so to over $200 per month which would at least cover my Medicare premiums.

But I have never been able to draw a spouse's SS benefit because I have my own Federal pension that is higher and this bill will not change that and I will still never get a spouse's SS benefit from my spouse's work. However my sister-in-law who was a stay at home spouse and never worked enough to get her own SS gets more in spouse's SS from my brother's work than I get in my Federal pension! Because he was high earner and I had a much more modest salary as a Federal employee.

[Bengus81]

8. Federal employee's hired after Jan 1984 have been paying into the SS system since then....

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Yes - under "FERS" ( "Federal Employees Retirement System" that replaced "CSRS" - "Civil Service Retirement System" )

And FERS people DO pay a little into the old CSRS but the bulk of their payout would be from contributions to the "TSP" ( "Thrift Savings Plan", which is 401(k)-like) + SS when they retire.

[Rebl2]

17. That's

what my husband has. He started working in summer of 84 at the postal service. He’s retired now seven years right before things started really going downhill at the PO. He was an electronic technician. He worked with what would now be called maga people. He was so happy to get out of there.

[Jacson6]

4. I hope it gets approved. A family member is a public school teacher with a public pension.

But she worked full time while she went to college for ten years and has worked every summer in private industry to help pay the bills. So she has paid a lot into FICA and she should get the full SSA retirement benefit. Not some measly $200 per month SSA check.

[republianmushroom]

12. Seems, maybe, the republicans are not the only ones dragging their feet on SS.

[Joe Nation]

13. My wife and I both are affected by the WEP

Although we don't both collect SS yet, it would greatly reduce our income simply because we worked as State employees for some part of our working lives. Anyone who has ever worked for the State knows that State jobs aren't very lucrative to begin with. The only upside is that you are guaranteed a pension albeit not very large. It just sucks that the SS benefit you eventually receive is reduced because of this stupid provision.

[HereForTheParty]

15. Will our Congress critters benefit from this?

If I saw the right bill, it had like 120 Republican supporters. I can't imagine why they would back it otherwise.