By Free Republic | Created at 2024-11-14 20:04:56 | Updated at 2024-11-22 18:51:57
1 week ago
The House just voted ‘yes’ on a bill that would increase Social Security checks for some pensioners
CNBC ^ | November 14, 2024 | Lorie Konish
Posted on 11/14/2024 11:30:36 AM PST by Red Badger
Key Points
Certain rules that reduce pensioners’ Social Security benefits have been in place for decades.
House lawmakers voted to approve a bill that would nix those rules.
Critics say more comprehensive Social Security reform should be prioritized instead.
*********************************************************************
A bipartisan bill to change Social Security benefit rules for pensioners passed in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, with 327 lawmakers voting to support the measure.
Now, the proposal heads to the Senate, where the chamber’s version of the bill has 62 co-sponsors, “surpassing the majority needed to pass the bill on the U.S. Senate floor and send it to the president’s desk to be signed into law,” Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Garret Graves, R-La., co-leaders of the bill, said in a joint statement.
The proposal — called the Social Security Fairness Act — would repeal rules that reduce Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pension benefits from state or local governments.
It would eliminate the windfall elimination provision, or WEP, that reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who worked in jobs where they did not pay Social Security payroll taxes and now receive pension or disability benefits from those employers. About 3% of all Social Security beneficiaries — about 2.1 million people — were affected by the WEP as of December 2023, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The bill would also eliminate the government pension offset, or GPO, which reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows and widowers who also receive pension checks. As of December, about 1% of all Social Security beneficiaries — or 745,679 individuals — were affected by the GPO, according to the Congressional Research Service.
These rules, which have been in effect for decades, reduce the incomes of certain retired police officers, teachers, firefighters and other public servants, Graves said during a speech Tuesday on the House floor.
“This has been 40 years of treating people differently, discriminating against a certain set of workers,” Graves said.
“They’re not people that are overpaid; they’re not people that are underworked,” he said.
Supporters call bill a ‘step in the right direction’ The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare said the House vote on the Social Security Fairness Act is a “step in the right direction” and a “bipartisan victory for public sector employees and their families.”
“We have long advocated for the repeal of the WEP and GPO provisions, though we would have preferred that Congress take up the more comprehensive improvements in Rep. John Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act,” Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said in a statement.
Larson’s proposal, which has 188 House co-sponsors, would also repeal the WEP and GPO, while also implementing other temporary benefit increases. To help pay for those changes, it would require people with more than $400,000 in income to pay more Social Security payroll taxes.
On Tuesday, Larson voted against the Social Security Fairness Act, as well as another bill, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act. The latter bill would use a new formula for Social Security retirement and disability benefits for pensioners rather than eliminate the WEP. It would not change the GPO.
The bill, which was proposed by Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, failed when it was brought up for a vote.
“I could not vote for the bills on the floor tonight because they are not paid for and therefore put Americans’ hard-earned benefits at risk,” Larson said in a statement. “It would hurt most deeply the five million of our fellow Americans who receive below poverty checks, and almost half of all Social Security recipients who rely on their earned benefits for the majority of their income.”
Critics say the bill will weaken Social Security The Social Security Fairness Act would add an estimated $196 billion to deficits over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. It would also move Social Security’s trust fund depletion dates closer by an estimated six months, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
“The long-term solvency of Social Security is an issue that Congress must address,” Spanberger said on the House floor on Tuesday.
“But that is a separate issue from allowing Americans who did their part, who contributed their earnings, for them to retire with dignity,” she said.
However, critics say Social Security’s funding woes should be a priority for Congress now. The program’s actuaries project the trust fund used to pay retirement benefits may be depleted in 2033, at which point 79% of benefits will be payable.
“This is not the right policy,” said Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute. “It’s what special interests were pushing, and politicians are responsive to their demands.”
Though the alternative bill proposed by Arrington would not address the GPO, it would provide a “fairer formula” for the WEP, Boccia said. However, broader changes are needed to shore up the program’s finances.
“We should reform Social Security so that it provides basic income security to the most vulnerable Americans in old age without adding to the debt or tax burden that younger workers face,” Boccia said.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Dear FRiends, Please use this temporary link to donate by credit card via Authorize.Net:
Or click here to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Hopefully, we'll have our normal CC system up and running again soon. Thank you very much for your loyal support!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
1 posted on 11/14/2024 11:30:37 AM PST by Red Badger
To: Red Badger
My buddy kept working...and they reduced his SS for every buck he made over a certain amount. It wasn’t right.
2 posted on 11/14/2024 11:35:58 AM PST by Sacajaweau
To: Red Badger
This new policy reward double dippers.
Those government workers who receive social security payments AND a pension.
3 posted on 11/14/2024 11:37:59 AM PST by Flavious_Maximus (Tony Fauci will be put on death row and die of COVID!)
To: Red Badger
I just wish they would notify you before they take your social security checks! It’s quite a shock to open bank statement after months of being too sick to find out you aren’t getting all your SS anymore because you took emergency catastrophe funds and are now broke.
4 posted on 11/14/2024 11:39:04 AM PST by AuntB (Trump is our Ben Franklin - Brilliant, Boisterous, Brave and ALL AMERICAN!)
To: Red Badger
The House just voted ‘yes’ on a bill that would increase Social Security checks for some pensioners
The FIRST reform should be - If you never paid in, then you get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
That would keep the left from frittering away what's left on illegal aliens!
5 posted on 11/14/2024 11:41:46 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (GOD Bless America and President Trump!)
To: Red Badger
“that reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who worked in jobs where they did not pay Social Security payroll taxes”
If you didn’t pay in to the system, you shouldn’t get anything out of the system.
6 posted on 11/14/2024 11:44:42 AM PST by JSM_Liberty
To: Red Badger
It would eliminate the windfall elimination provision, or WEP, that reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who worked in jobs where they did not pay Social Security payroll taxes and now receive pension or disability benefits from those employers. About 3% of all Social Security beneficiaries — about 2.1 million people — were affected by the WEP as of December 2023, according to the Congressional Research Service.
If they did not pay into SS then they should not receive SS. Or if they did not pay into SS for any given year, they should not get any credit for that year. This is a bill just to reward government and union workers at the rest of our expense.
7 posted on 11/14/2024 11:45:05 AM PST by JoSixChip (P.S. There’s a fed in that thread you’re in right now.)
To: JSM_Liberty
“If you didn’t pay in to the system, you shouldn’t get anything out of the system.”
The law applies to people who did work and paid into the system.
8 posted on 11/14/2024 11:49:31 AM PST by odawg
To: Flavious_Maximus
Double dipper is a propaganda word to inspire envy. Some people worked 45-50 years. In that time they maybe worked as a cop or teacher or fireman for 25 years. And before or after that time, they also worked another job and got fully vested in SS, and were assigned a commensurate lower amount based upon their years of paying into SS.
But when they went to draw that SS BASED UPON FEWER YEARS, the Government bled away 40-60% of it. They wind up getting SS of $525 a month or some such before taxes! They are already getting lower SS because they were not in the system their whole working life. It’s theft based on envy.
9 posted on 11/14/2024 11:49:49 AM PST by DesertRhino (2016 Star Wars, 2020 The Empire Strikes Back, 2024... RETURN OF THE JEDI..)
To: Red Badger
“would repeal rules that reduce Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pension benefits from state or local governments.”
If you DIDN’T have to pay in to the social security system because you were paying in to a separate state or local system then you shouldn’t get social security benefits.
If you DID actually pay into both systems then you should be able to get payments from both systems.
10 posted on 11/14/2024 11:50:21 AM PST by JSM_Liberty
To: Flavious_Maximus
This new policy reward double dippers.
I worked for years before I got a teacher job with a teacher’s pension. My SS is reduced by about half of what it should be. But yes, the provision was passed to penalize ‘double dippers’
On the other hand, take someone like Barack Obama. I pretty sure he get some kind of pension from the state of Illinois from when he was a state Senator, a pension from when he was in the U.S. Senate as well as for being President. Don’t know if his Social Security is cut from his work as ‘community organizer or not.
In my case, if this passes the Senate and becomes law, my increase won’t be that much, maybe $100 a month. And my wife might get a Social Security payment of 10¢ or so a month instead of having to send a check to Medicare every year.
11 posted on 11/14/2024 11:50:30 AM PST by hanamizu ( )
To: Red Badger
“We should reform Social Security so that it is not given out to people who didnt pay in and that includes all these new arrivals and the invading force at the border
To: Flavious_Maximus
I believe the WEP specifically lowered SS for people with pensions who didn't put the pension amount into their SS.
If I understand it correctly, this won't impact all pensioners, but the ones who's paychecks were calculated to put less into FICA by an amount contributed to their pension. The old law makes people in those situations get less SS. The new law would make them get as much SS as if their paycheck's FICA contributions weren't lowered because of their pension contribution.
IF I understand it correctly. Big IF. LOL
13 posted on 11/14/2024 11:53:15 AM PST by Tell It Right (1 Thessalonians 5:21 -- Put everything to the test, hold fast to that which is true.)
To: odawg
“The law applies to people who did work and paid into the system.”
then the article is confusingly written as it references jobs where SS taxes were not withheld.
14 posted on 11/14/2024 11:53:19 AM PST by JSM_Liberty
To: Sacajaweau
Sounds like he made over the minimum annually. Yes, that is a rule if you decide to continue to work and take SS. It is one of the reasons I am continuing to work.
Rule: Before full retirement age: You can earn up to $23,400 per year ($1,950 per month) before the Social Security Administration (SSA) starts withholding benefits. For every $2 earned above the limit, $1 in benefits will be withheld
15 posted on 11/14/2024 11:53:49 AM PST by EBH (America Blackmailed, The True Story of the World War...Coming Soon (1/21-))
To: Red Badger
““I could not vote for the bills on the floor tonight because they are not paid for “
Larson didn’t worry about that when it was time to give a flood of cash to Ukraine.
16 posted on 11/14/2024 11:54:44 AM PST by DesertRhino (2016 Star Wars, 2020 The Empire Strikes Back, 2024... RETURN OF THE JEDI..)
To: Red Badger
Before the government was allowed to unionize against the taxpayers, government jobs were seen as mostly for the lazy with no desire to compete in the workplace, the deal was that while the pay wasn’t great, you also didn’t have to work hard and it was almost impossible to be fired.
When they were allowed to unionize then the process started to get where they are today, magnificent pay, a dream menu of benefits and retirement, and they still can’t be fired and can be lazy.
17 posted on 11/14/2024 11:55:15 AM PST by ansel12 ((NATO warrior under Reagan, and RA under Nixon, bemoaning the pro-Russians from Vietnam to Ukraine.))
To: Red Badger
At this moment pensions in Ukraine are fully funded and paid by the US government, while they steal earned benefits from US retires on SS already drawing lower SS based on fewer years.
This is the right thing to do.
18 posted on 11/14/2024 11:56:04 AM PST by DesertRhino (2016 Star Wars, 2020 The Empire Strikes Back, 2024... RETURN OF THE JEDI..)
To: AuntB
emergency catastrophe funds? What are you referring to? Hurricane relief or some such? And they deduct it from your SS?
Can you please lay out the story a little more?
19 posted on 11/14/2024 11:57:30 AM PST by DesertRhino (2016 Star Wars, 2020 The Empire Strikes Back, 2024... RETURN OF THE JEDI..)
To: Red Badger
I mean, if you’re double dipping, you should just retire already.
Open up that position to someone from Gen-X!
20 posted on 11/14/2024 11:57:38 AM PST by SeanS
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
