Bill Overview
Title: Social Security Fairness Act of 2021
Description: This bill repeals provisions that reduce Social Security benefits for individuals who receive other benefits, such as a pension from a state or local government. The bill eliminates the government pension offset , which in various instances reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows, and widowers who also receive government pensions of their own. The bill also eliminates the windfall elimination provision , which in some instances reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who also receive a pension or disability benefit from an employer that did not withhold Social Security taxes. These changes are effective for benefits payable after December 2021.
Sponsors: Rep. Davis, Rodney [R-IL-13]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by government pension offset and windfall elimination provision
Estimated Size: 1800000
- The Social Security Fairness Act of 2021 targets individuals who are affected by the government pension offset or the windfall elimination provision.
- Primarily, this includes retirees who have worked in jobs where they earned a pension and did not contribute to Social Security, such as certain state and local government employees.
- The government pension offset specifically affects the Social Security benefits of spouses, widows, and widowers with their own government pensions.
- The windfall elimination provision affects individuals who have a pension from work not covered by Social Security.
Reasoning
- The Social Security Fairness Act of 2021 primarily benefits retirees with non-Social Security pensions who are currently disadvantaged by reductions in their Social Security benefits.
- Given a budget of $19,500,000,000 for the first year, the policy can immediately help many individuals by increasing their Social Security benefits, thus enhancing their financial security and wellbeing.
- The primary targets are those who were not contributing to Social Security during their careers, such as state and local government employees, teachers, and certain federal workers.
- By simulating interviews, we can capture the diverse experiences and expected improvements across different demographics.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Teacher (California)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was really disappointed when I found out my Social Security benefits were reduced because of my teacher's pension.
- This policy seems like a lifesaver for people like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Retired Police Officer (Texas)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These reductions have made retirement harder than I expected, even though I thought I had planned well.
- Reversing these cuts could not only help me but also protect my spouse if something happens to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Retired Federal Employee (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I always assumed my public service and part-time work would secure my future.
- Policy changes like this provide much needed fairness and stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired Government Worker (New York)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was quite unaware of how much the pension offset would impact us.
- If these changes happen, my wife and I can have a more secure retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Retired Nurse (Ohio)
Age: 64 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I paid into my pension, not realizing it would hurt my Social Security later.
- This change could mean a much easier time for me in retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Retired City Planner (Illinois)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My benefits were reduced due to the windfall elimination provision; this policy gives me hope.
- I can finally access the full benefits that my colleagues who paid into Social Security get.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired Firefighter (Oregon)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the pension offset, my benefits were barely enough.
- The policy is crucial for people like me who are relying on limited finances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Retired Librarian (Virginia)
Age: 75 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been a tight financial situation with reduced Social Security due to my pension.
- This policy could help dissolve a lot of those stressors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired School Administrator (Georgia)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I felt misled about what my Social Security would look like because of my other pension.
- Finally, this adjustment feels fair to those of us who worked in the public system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired Public Works Engineer (Michigan)
Age: 69 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been hard knowing my contributions seemed to vanish under the windfall rules.
- Revoking these provisions means real peace of mind in our retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $19500000000 (Low: $18000000000, High: $21000000000)
Year 2: $20000000000 (Low: $18500000000, High: $21500000000)
Year 3: $20500000000 (Low: $19000000000, High: $22000000000)
Year 5: $21500000000 (Low: $20000000000, High: $23000000000)
Year 10: $23500000000 (Low: $22000000000, High: $25000000000)
Year 100: $34000000000 (Low: $32000000000, High: $36000000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on Social Security Trust Fund solvency due to increased outlays without associated revenue increases.
- Potential political pressures surrounding Social Security adequacy and fairness considerations.
- The interaction between state/local government budgets and increased Social Security benefits.