The rationale behind WEP is that Social Security benefits are designed to replace a higher percentage of income for lower-wage workers. Since teachers with non-covered pensions appear to Social Security as "low-wage workers" (because their teaching earnings don't show up in SS records), WEP was created to adjust for this. I agree it feels unfair, but that's the current policy logic. There are ongoing efforts to reform it.

I just checked my SS statement online and I only have about 15 years of substantial earnings under Social Security. Most of my career has been teaching. So I guess the full WEP will apply to me regardless. Still, getting that 24% increase by waiting until 70 seems worthwhile.

It's THEFT, plain and simple! I've written to my congressman 3 times about this and they just send form letters back. The system is rigged against public servants!

Thank you for the specific language to use! This will be extremely helpful when I contact SSA. I really appreciate everyone's insights and advice. I feel much more prepared to navigate this complicated situation now.

Yes, that's called IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount). If your modified adjusted gross income from two years prior exceeds certain thresholds, you pay higher Part B and Part D premiums. So income reported in 2024 would affect your 2026 Medicare premiums if you're enrolled by then. It's another factor to consider in your calculation.

Oh wow, I hadn't considered the Medicare angle. I need to check those IRMAA thresholds too. This is getting complicated!

That's a common misconception. Social Security is not going bankrupt. According to the 2023 Trustees Report, even if Congress does absolutely nothing (which is unlikely), the trust fund would be depleted in the 2030s, but ongoing payroll taxes would still fund approximately 80% of promised benefits. And Congress has always acted to shore up the program before significant cuts would take effect, as they've done several times over the program's 89-year history.

She paid into both! She worked at a school district that had its own pension system, but she also had several side jobs over the years where she paid into Social Security. Then she worked part-time at a private company after retiring from the school district. So she definitely contributed to both systems, which is why the GPO seemed so unfair to us too!

good point about the documents. they always want proof even when its in their system already. my dad had to show same documents 3 different times for same claim!!

Social Security definitely uses 35 years, not 30, for the benefit calculation. They take your highest 35 years of earnings (after indexing them for inflation), average them, and use that to determine your primary insurance amount (PIA). If you have fewer than 35 years of earnings, they'll use zeros for the missing years, which lowers your average.

Smart move! Just remember that when they do the calculation, they adjust all your past earnings for inflation ("indexing"), so those early years get a boost in the calculations. My SSA agent explained that a year where I earned $25,000 in the 1980s might actually count as $70,000+ in today's dollars after indexing. That's why some of my recent work didn't help as much as I expected - my indexed early years were actually pretty competitive with my current salary!