Sunday, November 23, 2008 | 8:51 a.m.

Your Social Security by Tom Margenau

Home > Lifestyle Columns > Your Social Security
Please contact your local newspaper editor if you want to read Your Social Security's column in your hometown paper.
tom margenau

Recently

  • Obama Could Finally Provide Impetus for Change
    Q: I thought your recent column that included proposals to fix Social Security's long-range financing problems was very insightful. People need to support political leaders who have the courage to tackle this issue. What do you think the election of …

  • No Right Way to Play The Sweepstakes
    I recently spent an evening with some new friends, and the topic of “what do you do for a living” naturally came up. When I mentioned that I write a Social Security question and answer column, they wanted to know what the most frequently asked …

  • Delay Could Pay in a Small Way
    Q: I have recently lost a good deal of my 401(k) money that was going to be my retirement nest egg. So now I've got to work longer than I originally planned. I'm thinking I won't be able to retire until I'm 70. Will I get extra Social Security …

  • Government Pension Offset Issue Touches a Nerve
    Q: You are so wrong about the Government Pension Offset issue! In a recent column, you said it is fair. Well, it might seem fair to a former highly paid government executive such as you? But to a low-paid government retiree like me, it is totally …

Not Everyone Agrees That Offsets Are Fair

Q: Will you please tell me the status of the bill to repeal the Social Security offset? When is Congress ever going to put the ax to the stupid and unfair offset law that hurts all of us retired government employees?

A: Well it's time for me to clear some space in my inbox because I'm going to get flooded with e-mails and letters telling me what a fool I am.

This happens every time I write a column about the dreaded "Social Security offset." And the reason it happens is because I think the offset is eminently fair and the offset law should NOT be repealed. And by the way, that opinion is coming to you from a retired federal employee (me) whose own Social Security benefits will be reduced by the offset.

Before I explain AGAIN why I think the law is fair, I must help other readers understand what we're talking about.

Most employees in this country have Social Security taxes withheld from their paychecks. But a small fraction of workers, about 10 percent, are not covered by Social Security. Most of these employees are state or local government workers who are covered by their own pension plan, not Social Security. Or they are older federal employees who are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System. (Federal employees hired after 1983 pay into Social Security.)

If you will get a pension from a job where your employer does not withhold Social Security taxes, but you have paid enough of those taxes in other jobs to qualify for a Social Security retirement benefit, that benefit probably will be reduced because of your government pension. The law requiring this reduction is called the "Windfall Elimination Provision."

The same government pension will offset, and usually eliminate, any Social Security benefits you might be due on a spouse's Social Security record. The law requiring this is called the "Government Pension Offset."

These two separate provisions, the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, are usually lumped together by most people impacted by the laws and referred to as the Social Security offsets.
Or to be more precise, they are usually called "those (expletive deleted) Social Security offsets."

And almost every year since these offsets were implemented about 25 years ago, some members of Congress — usually those representing districts with many government employees — introduce legislation to eliminate the offsets. And every year, these bills go down to defeat. They are routinely defeated because most members of Congress recognize, as I do, that the offsets are fair and make sense.

The Government Pension Offset, the one that keeps most government employees from collecting spousal benefits from their husband's or wife's Social Security record, is easy to explain.

It merely treats a government pension in the same way as the law has always treated a Social Security retirement pension. If you collect a high Social Security retirement benefit, that benefit offsets any dependent's benefit you might potentially be due as a wife or husband on your spouse's Social Security record. The GPO rule simply says we will treat a government retirement pension the same way. If you get a high government pension, you won't get a dependent's benefit from Social Security. (Before the GPO was implemented, government employees were the only people in the country who received both a comfortable retirement pension AND a Social Security dependent's benefit.)

The Windfall Elimination Provision is a little more complicated to explain. The Social Security benefit formula has always been skewed so that low-income workers get a higher rate of return from Social Security. That doesn't mean they get higher monthly benefits. But as a percentage of what they kicked into the system, they get a better deal than their higher-paid counterparts.

Before the WEP law was enacted, government employees who were getting comfortable retirement pensions from their employers but who also spent time at a job paying into Social Security received monthly Social Security checks using the benefit formula intended to compensate low-income workers. The WEP rules simply change their Social Security compensation formula so they get a rate of return comparable to most middle-class workers in this country.

Sorry folks, but the WEP and GPO rules are fair and should not be repealed.

To find out more about Tom Margenau and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.




AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Get RSS Feed for Tom Margenau Email updates Email me Tom Margenau updates Comments Comments
Originally Published on Wednesday August 06, 2008

Editors Picks - Lifestyle Columns
Gene Can Affect Ability To Lose Weight, Study Says
Dr. David Lipschitz
Take That!
Patty Saunier
A Bailout of Hope
William Moyers
See All
More Tom Margenau
Nov. `08
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
View By Month
About the author Print friendly format Write the author Email This Article to a friend
All newspaper editors want to know what their readers like. If you would like to read this feature in your local newspaper, please do not hesitate to share your enthusiasm with your local newspaper editor.

 

Shop Creators Syndicate

 
Sunday, November 23, 2008 | 8:51 a.m.
About Creators | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Editor's login | FAQ | En Español
Copyright © 2006 Creators.com. All Rights Reserved.
Web Development by JJCO