Supporting solutions to the WEP issue

OPERS works to ensure Social Security benefits are fairly calculated

By Christopher Collins, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System

April 4, 2017 — We often receive feedback from our members regarding the extent to which their Social Security benefits are impacted by the Windfall Elimination Provision. In fact, it’s one of the most-frequent issues we hear about from our retirees.

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding how WEP and a companion provision affecting spouses, called the Government Pension Offset, work, or how they can be modified. First, let’s define what they are.

What are WEP and GPO?

Under WEP, a Social Security retirement or disability benefit might be reduced if a recipient receives a public pension from a job where he or she did not pay into Social Security.

Most public employees in Ohio are not covered by Social Security for their retirement benefit. Instead, they belong to one of five statewide public retirement systems that pay their pension upon retirement. However, if they worked for a period of time in the private sector, they also may be entitled to a Social Security benefit when they retire.

If that’s the case, they are subject to WEP, a provision of federal law that potentially reduces the amount they may collect in Social Security benefits. GPO affects their spouses in the same way.

In some cases, the reduction can be as much as one-half the amount of the person’s pension benefit. GPO has a different calculation, but the end result is a significant reduction of a Social Security benefit based on a spouse’s work record.

WEP and GPO are federal laws

WEP and GPO are part of the Social Security Act, which is a federal law. We cannot control whether and when they are repealed. WEP and GPO were originally adopted to address legitimate concerns regarding the way Social Security benefits are calculated. The Social Security formula provides a level of benefits based on how much you earn. The formula was designed to provide higher replacement rates for lower-income workers.

Normally this is not a problem. However, for certain individuals who are eligible to receive Social Security benefits and who also receive a pension from non-Social Security-covered employment, such as OPERS, the formula often produces results that are out of step with individuals’ total career earnings.

Each year an individual works in non-Social Security-covered employment appears as a zero in the benefit formula. Adding zeroes to the formula’s average calculation tends to lower the average, making it seem like the individual had lower total earnings than he or she actually did, and creating a higher replacement rate than was warranted. Congress enacted WEP to address this inequity.

Of course, we know now the formula does not always function as intended, and that WEP (and the GPO) need to be revisited, but it has been difficult to build consensus around a workable solution.

OPERS advocates for change

Virtually each Congressional session, legislation is introduced to repeal WEP and/or GPO. However these bills have never progressed through the legislative process despite having hundreds of co-sponsors. Why? The simple answer is cost.

The Social Security Administration has estimated that a full repeal of WEP and GPO would cost tens of billions of dollars over a 10-year period. The current political climate in Washington makes it highly improbable to pass any repeal legislation that would cost the Social Security trust fund that much money without some way to offset the cost.

That said, OPERS is in continual communication with the members of the Ohio congressional delegation, advocating in favor of legislation and policies that improve our members’ retirement security, including WEP/GPO relief.

The downside of a repeal effort

OPERS advocates for a more equitable calculation of WEP and GPO, if not a full repeal; however, we do not want the solution to result in legislation that would require all public employees to participate in Social Security.

Mandatory Social Security coverage for public employees in non-covered states would be devastating to the public retirement systems in those states if contributions previously made to the funds were instead diverted to Social Security.

A more likely alternative to (and perhaps a first step toward) total repeal is reform of the WEP and/or GPO formula to make them more equitable.

The latest attempt: The Brady bill, HR 711

Congressman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, has been working on legislation to modify the WEP formula over the last several years. The latest version of this legislation, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act, HR 711, would have reduced the existing WEP for individuals who were 62 or older before 2017, and replaced WEP with an entirely new formula for individuals who turned 62 on or after 2017.

After making significant progress, HR 711 stalled in committee in July. From its inception, HR 711 had critics. There were a number of reasons why, including opposition from groups who would not support anything other than full repeal of WEP (and GPO).

For our part, we viewed HR 711 as the closest we had come to true WEP reform in the 30-plus years since the provision was enacted. We sought to keep the discussion going in spite of the many concerns that were raised, hoping that some compromise could be reached. Through each step of the process, we worked with Congressman Brady and committee staff to make them aware of the real-life consequences of the WEP and to ensure that our members’ needs and concerns were heard.

While there were attempts to address as many of the critics’ concerns as possible, it became clear that a consensus could not be reached, and subsequently, the bill was pulled from consideration pending further discussions. HR 711 died when the previous Congress ended  Jan. 3.

What’s next

We fully expect that a new version of HR 711 will be reintroduced in the current Congress. The coalition that supported the bill has continued to engage with Congressman Brady, encouraging him to move forward with WEP reform. As we have since HR 711 was first introduced, OPERS intends to closely review any legislative proposal to determine its impact on our members.

You will have a chance to participate in this process as it will likely be necessary for OPERS to seek additional data from our members about their Social Security status to help inform our analysis of any forthcoming WEP reform proposal.

Once OPERS has had a chance to review the details, we will communicate with our members about how they can help advocate for a WEP reform solution that helps improve the current situation.

Stay tuned for more information.

Christopher Collins

Chris Collins is an assistant government relations officer at the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, advocating for our legislative agenda. Prior to joining the OPERS team, Chris was Ohio legislative director for the Service Employees International Union State Council for seven years.

Christopher Collins

Assistant Government Relations Officer

40 thoughts on “Supporting solutions to the WEP issue

  • April 4, 2017 at 8:57 am
    Permalink

    Thank you for explaining the ramifications of a total repeal of WEP, as I wasn’t aware of the far reaching effects it would have. I do appreciate your continued efforts in negotiating for HR711.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 9:06 am
    Permalink

    Thank you for the update. Please keep OPERS members informed of potential legislation regarding WEP. I worked 23 years in the private sector and currently 18 years in the public sector. As a divorced woman, I will rely solely on my retirement benefits. I am looking at a 40% reduction in Social Security benefits. It is unfair to be penalized because I joined the public sector. The public health workforce is shrinking. This is an example of why working for the public sector is not favorable.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 9:06 am
    Permalink

    Thank you so much!! I hope something like HR 711 is passed soon!

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 9:09 am
    Permalink

    Thank you for addressing this issue, it been a problem area for members of the FOP as well.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 9:11 am
    Permalink

    Chris:
    I understand the programs but in conversations with friends from the state of NY I find they are not being penalized on their state pensions like Ohio. They draw both in full. Just curious how Ohio was among a handful of states that decided not to pay into SS? Thanks.

    Reply
    • May 2, 2017 at 1:26 pm
      Permalink

      Some retirement systems, like OPERS, actually pre-date Social Security.

      Under the original Social Security Act of 1935, state and local government employees were excluded from Social Security coverage because of uncertainty whether the federal government could impose taxes on state and local governments and their employees.

      Beginning in 1951, states were allowed to enter into voluntary agreements with the federal government to provide Social Security coverage to public employees. These arrangements are called “Section 218 Agreements.” All 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other interstate instrumentalities have Section 218 Agreements with SSA.

      In 26 states, at least 90% of state and local government employees work in positions covered by Social Security, meaning they make contributions to both their retirement system and Social Security. By contrast, in a number of states like California, Colorado, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas, to name a few, less than half of state and local government employees are covered. Approximately one-fourth of the nation’s public employees are not covered by Social Security. For those employees, their public retirement system is intended to be their main source of income in retirement.

      As mentioned in the blog, mandatory Social Security coverage for public employees in non-covered states would be devastating to the public retirement systems in those states if contributions previously made to the funds were instead diverted to Social Security.

      Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 9:55 am
    Permalink

    I have contributed to Social Security (currently receiving for employment with Social Security contribution employment); OPERS (not yet applied for and not vested); and FERS (not yet applied for and vested). I am unsure how my 3 retirement incomes are effected by WEP, I am 64 years old and have no idea how to obtain the information necessary to decide how to proceed. Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

    Reply
    • April 6, 2017 at 11:17 am
      Permalink

      Helen,

      Thank you for your post. There are several moving parts to your question, so your best bet would be to contact your local Social Security office.

      Good luck,

      Julie, Ohio PERS

      Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 10:36 am
    Permalink

    It is my understanding in you have 35 or more years in social security and then went to PERS your social security will not be affected. Is this true?

    Reply
    • May 3, 2017 at 9:10 am
      Permalink

      Yes. Under current law your Social Security benefit will not be reduced due to your OPERS pension if you have 30 or more years of “substantial” earnings in a job where you paid Social Security taxes. The threshold for “substantial” earnings changes each year. Social Security has a chart on its website that shows the threshold each year from 1937 to today. (https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10045.pdf#page=2) The original version of HR 711 included extending that requirement to 35 years, but that issue will need to be revisited when the new version of the WEP reform bill is reintroduced.

      If you have more questions about your Social Security payments, you should contact your local Social Security office. In the meantime, we’ll continue following the WEP/GPO issue and provide an update when any new developments occur.

      Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 11:43 am
    Permalink

    I am currently still working part time in the private sector. I do not want more then I deserve but I feel I should get benefits from SS on what I have actually paid in and continue to pay in. Your explanation of why it was enacted and why full repeal would be bad is that best I have read. Thank you for clarifying I had been in favor of full repeal.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 11:48 am
    Permalink

    Thank you for this information. Keep fighting to get WEP changed or repealed. I understand that a person who worked 30 years under Social Security gets their full benefit while someone like me who worked 26 years has their benefit reduced. This seems so unfair to me. We shouldn’t be penalized, because the economy forced us out of the private workforce and we were lucky enough to find work in the public sector where I worked for 13 years. Keep fighting for this change.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 12:08 pm
    Permalink

    Thank you for the update. I have 23 years in SS and now for local government. I support the change and sincerely hope that HR 711 passes soon as I only have one more year until possible retirement.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 12:25 pm
    Permalink

    Thank you for your advocacy and keeping us informed. It is a significant issue, having worked in both private non-profit and the public sectors, and now find that my income is far less in retirement than if I had stayed on one sector. The pace of progress has been so slow, I hope it can be remedied in my lifetime.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 12:40 pm
    Permalink

    While I can understand some I don’t see how my money is not my money. If I had a private company pension I would still have my ssI . We already get penalized by not having access to ssi disability after our disability was changed. We get hurt or sick and can’t work but we have very limit disability benefits and still have to pay into Medicare which is fine as we will be able use it. If someone has never worked or is from somewhere else they get the full boat,I don’t understand

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 12:45 pm
    Permalink

    Thank you for continuing to inform us regarding this important issue. I am receiving
    SS benefits with a 40% penalty. I feel strongly
    That the WEP should be repealed. I was fortunate to obtain a position in the Public Sector and worked for 20 years. I found out after working a number of years about the WEP and find it totally unfair.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 12:52 pm
    Permalink

    Thank you for the information On WEP and hoping we can get this changed. My husband passed away in 2005 and I cannot get any of his Social Security because I receive Opers. This is unfair as he paid in to Social Security all those years and he passed before he could get it and I his spouse can’t get it either. Where does his share go? To people on drugs??? Sad.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 2:29 pm
    Permalink

    I think we all need to really inspect any bill that is forthcoming. The last version was noted as ‘cost neutral’ which is obviously not a total, or even partial, elimination of the WEP. From what I understood the older retirees might get a few dollars a month more initially while future retirees would actually see a reduction depending on their yearly pension income. Meanwhile the government keeps tapping SS funds for other programs that have nothing to do with retired people who actually paid into the funds and deserve the supplement.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 2:35 pm
    Permalink

    Thanks for the thorough explanation. I appreciate your advocacy on this.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 2:58 pm
    Permalink

    OPERS retirees should not be penalized in regard to either of the above mentioned federal laws. We are penalized for working. Spouses that have never worked a day in their entire life receive half of their spouses social security and the full amount upon the death of the spouse. If they do not pay into the social security system, spouses should not receive benefits…especially since OPERS members ARE working and receive reduced social security benefits and in many cases no social security at all. If the federal government has plenty of money to pay social security benefits to spouses that never worked (I’d call this welfare) then certainly money should be made available to spouses that did work.

    Reply
    • April 4, 2017 at 6:01 pm
      Permalink

      Well said! I totally agree! The WEP should be totally repealed. I am concerned, however, that older retirees like myself may not benefit if this happens.

      Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 5:03 pm
    Permalink

    sorry I think it is all unexceptable i worked for the state and did what they tell you to do now put away moneys for retirement i had more points than required for my ss because i worked two other jobs under ss and one part time self busness which i payed ss but when i retired i can only draw 40 % of what i would be entitled to if i had not worked for the state .

    I feel that those that worked for ss and a private self paid retirement if they are entitled to both then they should get the total that they are entitled to instead of paying all that in and having everyone else that didn’t get it instead

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 5:55 pm
    Permalink

    The present law is an extreme penalty to married retirees. Both my wife and I were public employees contributing to the Ohio Systems as well as into Social Security before that. My SS retirement benefit was reduced significantly when I retired at age 70. My wife’s SS benefits were also reduced as a percentage of my previously reduced SS benefit rather than being based on her own earnings. So she was allocated less than 40 percent of whatever her SS retirement earnings might have been as a single SS beneficiary. AND the Social Security Administrative Office noted that was all she could receive under the current law. That is a travestry in my view.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 6:20 pm
    Permalink

    My husband worked 26 years under social security and retired in OPERS. Now when he collects social security it will be at 50% and his Medicare part B premium has gone up every year since he hasn’t collected social security so it is a double penalty. Higher premium and lower social security. It does not make sense. He would collect more at 100% social security and zero OPERS.

    Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 8:21 pm
    Permalink

    I’m still a bit confused. Majority of my working life has been a public employee. If my husband receives a small military pension at age 60 and retires at 62 from his factory work and starts receiving social security, then his social security will be reduced? And my spousal social security benefit will be essentially eliminated factoring in my OPERS pension at age 65? Social security office wasn’t even able to answer this and just handed us the pamphlets on WEP and GPO. Hopefully this becomes clearer in the next 4 or 5 years.

    Reply
    • April 6, 2017 at 10:44 am
      Permalink

      Rose,

      Thank you for your comment. If you have questions about your Social Security payments, you should contact your local Social Security office. Like you, we are carefully following the WEP/GPO issue and we will provide an update when any new developments occur.

      Thanks again,

      Julie, Ohio PERS

      Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 10:44 pm
    Permalink

    I am not necessarily opposed to changes in how the WEP is applied, provided that the changes are phased in slowly and do not negatively affect millions of people who are close to retirement. But HR 711 was horrible legislation. According to Steven Goss, Chief Actuary of Social Security, it would have reduced SS benefits for 11 million people, while increasing benefits for about 1 million – so there would have been many more losers than winners had it passed. The main problem is that the bill would have eliminated the WEP exemption for people who have paid significant amounts into SS for 30 years and for those who are not eligible for pensions from non-covered employment. The original bill also would have subjected 7 million current beneficiaries to extremely intrusive WEP audits, and any of these folks who could not or would not comply with the required certifications from jobs they had decades ago that they were not eligible for pensions (yes, that includes people in their 80s and 90s) would have been hit with thousands of dollars in retroactive penalties that would have been taken out of their future benefit checks. The author of this article, as well as other cheerleaders for this bill that was little more than a thinly-veiled attempt by the Republicans to cut aggregate SS benefits for retirees and near-retirees, should be ashamed of themselves for not looking beneath the surface and naively assuming that any “reform” of the WEP must be a good thing. Thank God for honest professionals like Steven Goss who are willing to examine a bill’s actual language, and not just its title.

    Reply
    • May 2, 2017 at 1:17 pm
      Permalink

      OPERS’ goal in supporting legislation to repeal or reform WEP is to find a solution that is beneficial for the majority of OPERS members and retirees.

      HR 711 was not a perfect bill as introduced, and it was still being amended based on feedback received by stakeholders and experts, including Mr. Goss, at the time it was pulled from consideration. We were very involved in tracking the proposed changes and conducting analyses of how the changes to the bill altered its impact.

      OPERS’ ultimate position on a WEP reform bill would be based on how the final bill’s provisions would benefit or harm OPERS members. In the current fiscal environment in Congress, any WEP reform legislation will include consideration of both the cost to Social Security and ways to offset that cost.

      Early versions of HR 711 included enforcement provisions designed to catch individuals who have not been following the law, and therefore, had received Social Security benefits greater than what current law allowed. Those enforcement provisions supported some of the cost to fix the formula for individuals currently impacted by WEP. Without those enforcement mechanisms, the amount the WEP formula could be changed was reduced.

      We look forward to working with Congressman Brady and other members of Congress when they revisit this issue to find a solution that works for the most people.

      Reply
  • April 4, 2017 at 11:12 pm
    Permalink

    If this is a federal law then why do only seven states participate? This is criminal. If you contributed to two savings accounts, what would happen if you were told, “Sorry, you only get one back.”

    Reply
    • May 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm
      Permalink

      Some retirement systems, like OPERS, actually pre-date Social Security.

      Under the original Social Security Act of 1935, state and local government employees were excluded from Social Security coverage because of uncertainty whether the federal government could impose taxes on state and local governments and their employees.

      Beginning in 1951, states were allowed to enter into voluntary agreements with the federal government to provide Social Security coverage to public employees. These arrangements are called “Section 218 Agreements.” All 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other interstate instrumentalities have Section 218 Agreements with SSA.

      In 26 states, at least 90% of state and local government employees work in positions covered by Social Security, meaning they make contributions to both their retirement system and Social Security. By contrast, in a number of states like California, Colorado, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas, to name a few, less than half of state and local government employees are covered. Approximately one-fourth of the nation’s public employees are not covered by Social Security. For those employees, their public retirement system is intended to be their main source of income in retirement.

      As mentioned in the blog, mandatory Social Security coverage for public employees in non-covered states would be devastating to the public retirement systems in those states if contributions previously made to the funds were instead diverted to Social Security.

      Reply
      • May 3, 2017 at 10:42 pm
        Permalink

        All OPERS retirees that have worked for years before and during their career in the public sector should get every penny of their social security. The Windfall Elimination Tax should not apply to those employees. The government seems to have plenty of money to hand out money to people, citizens and non-citizens, who have done nothing to earn it. NOT FAIR!

        Reply
  • April 5, 2017 at 6:06 am
    Permalink

    Add my support to the list of those wishing reform to current WEP regulations. I qualify for Social Security benefits based on my work experience. I also am eligible for spousal benefits. My ss amount is reduced by approximately 33% and I receive nothing from my spouse’s benefits. All because I worked and receive a pension from OPERS. This monthly benefit (OPERS) is also lower because I worked part-time for several years. That additional 33% would certainly help each month.

    Reply
  • April 7, 2017 at 6:39 am
    Permalink

    This is so frustrating and a real hardship for many. Ohio is one of the states with a large population that this offset applies too. Why are some states effected but not all states? I really hope this gets repealed soon.

    Reply
    • May 4, 2017 at 2:10 pm
      Permalink

      Thanks for your question, SB.

      Some retirement systems, like OPERS, actually pre-date Social Security.

      Under the original Social Security Act of 1935, state and local government employees were excluded from Social Security coverage because of uncertainty whether the federal government could impose taxes on state and local governments and their employees.

      Beginning in 1951, states were allowed to enter into voluntary agreements with the federal government to provide Social Security coverage to public employees. These arrangements are called “Section 218 Agreements.” All 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other interstate instrumentalities have Section 218 Agreements with SSA.

      In 26 states, at least 90% of state and local government employees work in positions covered by Social Security, meaning they make contributions to both their retirement system and Social Security. By contrast, in a number of states like California, Colorado, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas, to name a few, less than half of state and local government employees are covered. Approximately one-fourth of the nation’s public employees are not covered by Social Security. For those employees, their public retirement system is intended to be their main source of income in retirement.

      Julie, Ohio PERS

      Reply
  • April 12, 2017 at 8:45 pm
    Permalink

    l am in agreement with nearly all of the previous comments shown above. It’s obvious that the Federal Government is using extortion against OPERS retirees that have worked honest jobs in their careers in both Social Security and public service. Instead of the Feds holding OPERS funds as “ransom” in (exchange) order to release the full amount of Social Security owed to us (rightfully ours!), they should replace the funds they removed over time from Soc. Sec. to disburse in other areas under the Federal umbrella. OPERS, thanks for advocating for thousands of us affected by WEP and GPO, both ridiculous and economically harmful laws!

    Reply
  • April 18, 2017 at 3:29 pm
    Permalink

    THE WEP IS AN UNFAIR LAW THAT HURTS SENIORS LIKE MY SELF AND SPOUSE LIVING ON A FIXED
    INCOME , I WORKED FOR THE DOD FED GOVT AND MY SPOUSE FOR THE STATE OF CASLIF,
    IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAKE ENDS MEET EVERY MONTH, WE NEED RELIEF NOW, PLEASE REPEAL THIS LAW
    ITS SIMPLY UNJUST, I AM PLEADING TO CONGRESS TO TAKE ACTION TO HELP US, DO WHAT IS RIGHT
    SHOW THAT YOU CARE AND RESPECT THE PEOPLE THAT WORKED FOR OUR GOVT AND STATE GOVT,
    WE HAVE WAITED LONG ENOUGH DO NOT CONTINUE TO HARM US WITH THIS LAW, ITS TIME NOW
    FOR YOU OUR REPS TO REPEAL THE WEO/GPO

    Reply
  • April 23, 2017 at 11:28 am
    Permalink

    I do not want anything more that I am entitled to, just what I earned while I was working outside the public sector and paid into social security.

    Reply
  • May 4, 2017 at 8:52 am
    Permalink

    I agree 100% or give me my money back.The Government needs
    to pay back the IOU’S to social security.

    Reply
  • May 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm
    Permalink

    I have taken a complete different view of the WEP than most others have taken. It is my belief, and supported by some attorneys, that WEP is unconstitutional.

    As an example, I had more than enough credits to qualify for Social Security. Each year I received a document from Social Security that indicated what my benefit would be if I retired at age 62, which I did. When applying for SS I was told that my benefit would be reduced by about x amount. I thought, however, that a person with the exact number of years and approximately the same amount covered SS income as me with no public pension the benefit should be the same. The money that I and my employers paid into the system was not government money, it was mine and my employers to purchase a benefit upon my retirement. But, because I chose to serve in a public service career I and others like me are being punished rather than rewarded for that service.

    Why do I think WEP is unconstitutional? It violates the “Equal Protection of the Law” language guaranteed by the Constitution. Equal SS years and similar income earned that goes into the SS calculation should be equal. I and my employers paid for it and it is not up to Congress to ignore the Constitution and take away from me the level of benefit we paid for. I realize that when this was passed Congress was controlled by Democrats and it was just another way to buy votes from lower income people. One attorney I spoke to told me that if this was ever taken to court and reviewed by the court strictly by what the Constitutional provisions are, it would almost be a slam dunk to win the case.

    One suggestion to cover the added costs if WEP is repealed is to increase the amount of income that is subject to SS taxes. The current system is supported by mid-level and lower income workers. This group, for the most part pays on 100% of their earnings while upper income people get to stop paying after the current level of income is reached. Making this change would cover the WEP repeal and provide more than enough funds to support SS well into more than the foreseeable future. If Congress is concerned for the people who are supporting SS now they should make this change. One thing to remember is that that “baby boomers” are passing through the system now. With a lower number of people in generations coming afterwards the costs should start to decline over a period of time.

    One last thing. Social Security should be taken off budget as it was originally conceived. The Social Security Administration should become a quasi-government entity to make it’s revenues off limits to Congress and the President. This is the way it started out when it was adopted in the FDR administration. President Johnson, with the help of Congress, put it on budget in order to be able to pay for the Vietnam War and for his failed Great Society programs. Let’s put a stop to paying for “bridges to “nowhere” and keep these monies for the people who paid into the system and expect a level of benefit if they qualify no matter where they may have worked at any point in their life.

    Reply
  • June 12, 2017 at 12:17 pm
    Permalink

    This would be such a blessing to so many people like myself that worked a majority of our career in the private sector and do not have enough years in the public sector to draw a decent pension and could really use the SS to supplement our income when we are aging rapidly. I will soon be 66 years old and and would love to think about retirement but I’m fearful that because of the WEP that it will never be in reach. It’s hard to remain positive when the numbers just don’t add up so you have to keep working. I hope Congress will be fair and help people like myself to be able to relax and enjoy retirement like so many others are able to do! I worked 2 jobs for 15 years and paid in to SS while I was employed in the public sector all the while knowing I was going to get a large reduction in my SS due to WEP. There has to be a fair solution for all. Thanks OPERS for keeping on this for us.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

dialog-information.png
We encourage your comments on the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System’s PERSpective blog. We can’t respond to every comment. Please be aware that we review all comments before they’re posted, and we reserve the right to edit, not publish or remove any comment that in our sole discretion does not further the purpose of the blog. For further details, please see our Comments Policy.
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *