Social Security: The Windfall Elimination
Provision (WEP)
Alison M. Shelton
Analyst in Income Security
May 11, 2009January 29, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
98-35
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Summary
The windfall elimination provision (WEP) reduces the Social Security benefits of workers who
also have pension benefits from employment not covered by Social Security. Its purpose is to
remove an advantage or “windfall” these workers would otherwise receive because Social Security’s benefit
formula is weighted such that workers with low lifetime earnings receive a greater share of their
covered earnings in benefits than workers with medium or high lifetime earnings. Opponents
as a result of the
interaction between the Social Security benefit formula and the workers’ relatively short careers
in Social Security-covered employment. Opponents contend that the provision is basically
imprecise and can be unfair. This report will be updated
annually or upon legislative activity.
Congressional Research Service
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................1
Who is Affected by the WEP? .....................................................................................................3
Legislative History and Rationale................................................................................................35
Arguments for the Windfall Elimination Provision ................................................................36
Arguments Against the Windfall Elimination Provision .........................................................36
The WEP’s Impact on Low-Income Workers .........................................................................6
Recent Legislation ......................................................................................................................4
Tables
Table 1. Monthly PIA for a Worker With Average Indexed Monthly Earnings of $1,000 ..............17
Tables
Table 1. Social Security Benefit Formula in 2010 ........................................................................1
Table 2. Monthly PIA for a Worker With Average Indexed Monthly Earnings of $1,500
and Retiring in 2010.................................................................................................................2
Table 3. WEP Reduction Falls with Years of Substantial Coverage ..............................................3
Table 4. Number of Beneficiaries in Current Payment Status with Benefits Affected by
Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), by State and Type of Benefit, December 2009............4
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................58
Congressional Research Service
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Background
A worker is eligible for Social Security after he or she works in Social Security-covered
employment for 10 or more years (40 or more quarters). In general, a worker’s monthly Social
Security benefit is based on his or her 35 highest-paid years of earnings in Social Securitycovered employment. The worker’s earnings are indexed to wage growth to bring earlier years of
his or her earnings up to a comparable, current basis. Average annual indexed earnings are found
by totaling the highest 35 years of indexed wages and then dividing by 35. Next, a monthly
average, known as Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME), is found by dividing the annual
average by 12.
The Social Security benefit formula is designed so that workers with low average lifetime
earnings, as represented by AIME, receive a benefit that is a larger proportion of their earnings
than do workers with high
average lifetime earnings. Social Security monthly benefits are computed by applying a formula
to an average of a person’s earnings from work subject to the Social Security payroll tax. The
formula applies three progressive factors—90%, 32%, and 15%—to three different levels, or
brackets, of average indexed monthly earnings. (Both the annual earnings amounts over the
worker’s lifetime, and the bracket amounts, are indexed to national wage growth so that the
Social Security benefit replaces the same proportion of wages for each generation.) The result is
known as the “primary insurance amount,” or PIA, and is rounded down to the nearest 10 cents.
For persons who reach age 62, die or become disabled in 2009, the PIA is determined thus:
Factor
Average Indexed Monthly Earnings
90%
first $744, plus
32%
earnings over $744 and through $4,483, plus
15%
over $4,483
average lifetime earnings. The benefit formula applies three
progressive factors—90%, 32%, and 15%—to three different levels, or brackets, of AIME.1 The
result is known as the “primary insurance amount” (PIA) and is rounded down to the nearest 10
cents. For persons who reach age 62, die, or become disabled in 2009, the PIA is determined in
Table 1 as follows:
Table 1. Social Security Benefit Formula in 2010
Factor
Average Indexed Monthly Earnings
90%
of the first $761, plus
32%
of earnings over $761 and through $4,586 plus
15%
of earnings over $4,586
Years of zero covered earnings are entered as zeros into the formula that averages the worker’s
wage history over 35 years. Some workers have short careers in Social Security-covered
employment—for example workers who have spent the majority of their careers in non-covered
federal2, state, or local government employment, or workers who have left the paid workforce for
other reasons. These workers did not pay FICA taxes during their years of non-covered
employment.
The averaging provision in the benefit formula tends to cause workers with short careers in
covered employment to have low AIMEs, similar to persons who worked for low wages in
covered employment throughout their careers. A worker’s AIME will be lowered by any zero
wage amounts that are entered into the 35-year averaging period, whether due to years of noncovered employment or years out of the workforce. Consequently, for a worker with a low AIME,
1
Both the annual earnings amounts over the worker’s lifetime, and the bracket amounts, are indexed to national wage
growth so that the Social Security benefit replaces the same proportion of wages for each generation.
2
Generally, employees of the federal government hired before 1984 are covered by the Civil Service Retirement
System (CSRS) and are not covered by Social Security. Most federal workers first hired into federal service on or after
January, 1984, participate in the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS), which includes Social Security
coverage.
Congressional Research Service
1
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
whether as a result of low career earnings or a short career in covered employment, the benefit
formula replaces more of covered earnings at the 90% rate than if this worker had spent his or her
full 35-year career in covered employment at the same wage level. The higher replacement rate3
for workers who have split their careers between Social Security-covered and non-covered jobs is
sometimes referred to as a “windfall.”4
A different Social Security benefit formula, referred to as the “windfall elimination provision”
(WEP), applies to many workers who also are entitled to a pension from work not covered by
Social Security (e.g., individuals who work for certain state and local governments, or under the
Federal Civil Service Retirement System). 15 Under these rules, the 90% factor in the first band of
bracket
of the formula is replaced by a factor of 40%. The effect is to lower the proportion of their earnings
in earnings in
the first bracket that are converted to benefits. The following tableTable 2 illustrates how the regular
and WEP
provisions work in 20092010.
Table 12. Monthly PIA for a Worker With Average Indexed Monthly
Earnings of $1,000500 and Retiring in 2010
Regular Formula
Windfall Elimination Formula
90% of first $744
$669.60761
$684.90
40% of first $744
$297.60761
$304.40
32% of earnings over $744761 and
through $4,483
81.92586
$236.48
32% of earnings over $744761 and
through $4,483
81.92
15% over $4,483
00.00
15% over $4,483
00.00
Total
751.52
Total
379.52586
$236.48
15% over $4,586
Total
0.00
$921.38
15% over $4,586
Total
0.00
$540.88
Thus, under the windfall elimination formula the benefit for the worker is $372.00
($751.52-$379.52380.50 ($921.38 –
$540.88) less per month than under the regular formula. Note that once average indexed
monthly earnings exceed the first level in the formula of $744, the amount of the reduction
remains at a constant $372.00 per month the WEP reduction is limited to
the first bracket in the AIME formula (90% vs. 40%), so that for AIME amounts that exceed the
first threshold of $761 the amount of the WEP reduction remains a flat $380.50 per month. This is
because the 32% and 15% factors for the second and
third levels are the same as in the regular
formula. For example, if the worker had $2,000 of
average indexed monthly earnings instead of $1,000
$1,500, the windfall reduction still would be
$372.00 per month. However, the constant benefit reduction amount of $372.00 represents a
1
Social Security Act §215(a)(7). Federal service where Social Security taxes are withheld (Federal Employees’
Retirement System or CSRS Offset) are not affected by the WEP.
Congressional Research Service
1
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
smaller percentage when the dollar amounts of benefits is higher, so the percent reduction in
benefits relative to the regular PIA formula varies with average indexed monthly earnings. For
example, if we applied the WEP formula to a worker with an average indexed monthly earnings
of $4,000, this worker would still see a dollar reduction of $372.00 per month. However, this
worker would experience a 22% reduction in benefits under the WEP compared to the regular
PIA formula, while the worker with a $1,000 in average indexed monthly earnings would
experience a 49% reduction in benefits under the WEP compared to the regular PIA formula.
The provision includes a guarantee (designed to help protect workers with low pensions) that the
reduction in benefits caused by the windfall elimination formula can never exceed more than half
of the pension based on non-covered work. The provision also exempts workers who have 30 or
more years of “substantial” employment covered under Social Security.2 Also, lesser reductions
apply to workers with 21 through 29 years of substantial covered employment, as follows:
Years of Social Security Coverage
First factor in formula
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
The provision also does not apply to: (1) an individual who on January 1, 1984 was an employee
of a government or nonprofit organization and to whom Social Security coverage was
mandatorily extended by the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act (e.g., the President,
Members of Congress in office on December 31, 1983); (2) benefits for survivors; (3) workers
who reached age 62, became disabled, or were first eligible for a pension from non-covered
employment, before 1986; (4) benefits from foreign Social Security systems that are based on a
“totalization” agreement with the United States; and (5) people whose only non-covered
employment that resulted in a pension was in military service before 1957 or is based on railroad
employment.
According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), as of December 2008 about 1 million
recipients were affected by the WEP (about 3.2% of retired workers). Of these, approximately
64% were men.
The impact of the WEP on low-income workers has been the subject of debate. SSA estimates
that in 2000, 3.5% of recipients affected by the WEP had incomes below the poverty line. For
comparison purposes, at that time 8.5% of all Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and older had
incomes below the poverty line and 11.3% of the general population had incomes below the
poverty line. 3
2
For determining years of coverage after 1978 for individuals with pensions from non-covered employment, the
amount is 25% of the “old law” (i.e., if the 1977 Social Security Amendments had not been enacted) Social Security
maximum taxable wage base for each year in question. In 2009, the “old-law” taxable wage base is equal to $79,200,
and, thus, to earn credit for one year of “substantial” employment under the WEP, a worker would have to earn at least
$19,800 in Social Security-covered employment.
3
These are the most recent estimates available. Poverty rates were calculated by David Weaver of the Social Security
Administration’s Office of Retirement Policy using the March 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS). Poverty status is
taken directly from the CPS and is thus subject to errors in the reporting of income. The sample size for the WEP
poverty rate is relatively small (230 cases) and only includes persons for whom SSA administrative records could be
matched.
Congressional Research Service
2
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Legislative History and Rationale
The Windfall Elimination Provision was enacted in 1983 as part of major amendments designed
to shore up the financing of the Social Security program. Its purpose was to remove an
unintended advantage that the regular Social Security benefit formula provided to persons who
also had pensions from non-Social Security-covered employment. The regular formula was
intended to help workers who spent their lifetimes in low paying jobs, by providing them with a
benefit that replaces a higher proportion of their earnings than the benefit that is provided to
workers with high earnings. However, the formula could not differentiate between those who
worked in low-paid jobs throughout their careers and other workers who appeared to have been
low paid because they worked many years in jobs not covered by Social Security. (The benefit
formula is applied to Social Security-covered wages that are averaged over a 35 year career, and
non-covered years of work are entered as “zero” into this formula. As a result, a short career in
Social Security-covered work, when averaged over 35 years, appears to have artificially low
wages.) Under the old law, workers who were employed for only a portion of their careers in jobs
covered by Social Security—even highly paid ones—also received the advantage of the
“weighted” formula. The windfall elimination formula is intended to remove this advantage for
would again be $380.50 per month.
A worker’s WEP reduction cannot exceed more than one half of the pension based on the
worker’s non-covered work: this “guarantee” is designed to help protect workers with low
pensions. Therefore, the WEP can never eliminate a person’s Social Security benefit. The WEP
also exempts workers who have 30 or more years of “substantial” employment covered under
3
A worker’s replacement rate is the ratio of his or her Social Security benefit to pre-retirement income.
4
The WEP is sometimes confused with the Government Pension Offset (GPO), which reduces Social Security spousal
benefits of a worker who also has a government pension based on work that was not covered by Social Security. For
more information on the GPO, please refer to CRS Report RL32453, Social Security: The Government Pension Offset
(GPO), by Alison M. Shelton.
5
Social Security Act §215(a)(7). Federal service where Social Security taxes are withheld (Federal Employees’
Retirement System or CSRS Offset) is not affected by the WEP.
Congressional Research Service
2
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Social Security, with lesser reductions for workers with 21 through 29 years of substantial
covered employment, as shown in Table 3.6
Table 3. WEP Reduction Falls with Years of Substantial Coverage
Years of Social Security Coverage
First factor in
formula
Maximum
dollar
amount of
monthly
WEP
reduction in
2010a
a.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
$380.5
$342.5
$304.4
$266.4
$228.3
$190.3
$152.2
$114.2
$76.1
$38.1
$0
WEP reduction may be lower than the amount shown because the reduction is limited to one-half of the
worker’s pension from non-covered employment. Source: Social Security Administration, How the Windfall
Elimination Provision Can Affect Your Social Security Benefit, Washington, DC, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/
retire2/wep-chart.htm.
The WEP does not apply to (1) an individual who on January 1, 1984, was an employee of a
government or nonprofit organization and to whom Social Security coverage was mandatorily
extended by the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act (e.g., the President, Members of
Congress in office on December 31, 1983); (2) benefits for survivors; (3) workers who reached
age 62, became disabled, or were first eligible for a pension from non-covered employment,
before 1986; (4) benefits from foreign Social Security systems that are based on a “totalization”
agreement with the United States; and (5) people whose only non-covered employment that
resulted in a pension was in military service before 1957 or is based on railroad employment.
Who is Affected by the WEP?
According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), as of December 2009 about 1.2 million
Social Security beneficiaries were affected by the WEP (about 3.3% of retired workers). Of these,
approximately 64% were men.
6
For determining years of coverage after 1978 for individuals with pensions from non-covered employment,
“substantial coverage” is defined as 25% of the “old law” (i.e., if the 1977 Social Security Amendments had not been
enacted) Social Security maximum taxable wage base for each year in question. In 2010, the “old-law” taxable wage
base is equal to $79,200, therefore to earn credit for one year of “substantial” employment under the WEP a worker
would have to earn at least $19,800 in Social Security-covered employment.
Congressional Research Service
3
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Table 4. Number of Beneficiaries in Current Payment Status with
Benefits Affected by Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP),
by State and Type of Benefit, December 2009
Total
Retired
Workers
Disabled
Workers
Spouses and
Children
1,197,020
1,092,562
16,307
88,151
Alabama
15,557
13,892
306
1,359
Alaska
6,139
5,744
95
300
Arizona.
22,095
20,303
293
1,499
Arkansas
8,935
8,182
203
550
California.
153,504
141,292
1,894
10,318
Colorado
35,327
32,810
431
2,086
Connecticut
11,454
10,818
155
481
Delaware
2,747
2,547
41
159
District of Columbia
6,835
6,447
128
260
Florida
68,727
63,005
816
4,906
Georgia
34,230
31,848
467
1,915
Hawaii
7,575
6,908
81
586
Idaho
5,252
4,811
70
371
Illinois
61,403
57,748
548
3,107
Indiana
12,050
11,033
228
789
Iowa
6,680
6,180
75
425
Kansas
7,157
6,629
100
428
Kentucky
15,439
14,149
312
978
Louisiana
23,372
20,862
543
1,967
Maine
10,894
10,141
160
593
Maryland
36,458
33,886
459
2,113
Massachusetts
41,348
38,965
600
1,783
Michigan
14,998
13,640
263
1,095
Minnesota
13,901
12,924
162
815
Mississippi
7,750
7,010
153
587
Missouri
25,196
23,620
357
1,219
Montana
4,387
4,020
64
303
Nebraska
4,350
4,046
44
260
Nevada
16,558
15,581
221
756
New Hampshire
5,345
4,959
108
278
New Jersey
17,637
16,170
324
1,143
New Mexico
10,253
9,128
176
949
New York
25,199
22,997
440
1,762
State
Total
Congressional Research Service
4
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Total
Retired
Workers
Disabled
Workers
Spouses and
Children
North Carolina
21,837
20,127
326
1,384
North Dakota
2,072
1,900
18
154
Ohio
86,065
79,760
1,036
5,269
Oklahoma
14,547
13,093
309
1,145
Oregon
11,825
10,892
164
769
Pennsylvania
27,944
25,468
504
1,972
Rhode Island
3,787
3,513
79
195
South Carolina
13,657
12,483
202
972
South Dakota
3,077
2,868
37
172
Tennessee
15,351
13,995
227
1,129
Texas
102,033
93,655
1,389
6,989
Utah
10,365
9,292
123
950
Vermont
2,010
1,849
21
140
Virginia.
38,455
35,192
422
2,841
Washington
22,831
20,567
297
1,967
West Virginia
5,046
4,461
127
458
Wisconsin
9,542
8,859
101
582
Wyoming
1,922
1,776
28
118
Outlying areas and foreign countries
65,902
50,517
580
14,805
State
Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, January 2010
Legislative History and Rationale
The Windfall Elimination Provision was enacted in 1983 as part of major amendments designed
to shore up the financing of the Social Security program. The 40% WEP formula factor was the
result of a compromise between a House bill that would have substituted a 61% factor for the
regular 90% factor and a Senate proposal that would have substituted a 32% factor for the 90%
formula.7
The purpose of the 1983 law was to remove an unintended advantage that the regular Social
Security benefit formula provided to persons who also had pensions from non-Social Securitycovered employment. The regular formula was intended to help workers who spent their lifetimes
in low paying jobs, by providing them with a benefit that replaces a higher proportion of their
earnings than the benefit that is provided to workers with high earnings. However, the formula
could not differentiate between those who worked in low-paid jobs throughout their careers and
7
Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1900, 98th Cong., March 24, 1983 (Washington: GPO, 1983), p. 120.
Congressional Research Service
5
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
other workers who appeared to have been low paid because they worked many years in jobs not
covered by Social Security. Under the old law, workers who were employed for only a portion of
their careers in jobs covered by Social Security—even highly paid ones—also received the
advantage of the “weighted” formula. The windfall elimination formula is intended to remove this
advantage for these workers.
Arguments for the Windfall Elimination Provision
Proponents of the measure say that it is a reasonable means to prevent payment of overgenerous
and unintended benefits to certain workers who otherwise would profit from happenstance (i.e.,
the mechanics of the Social Security benefit formula). Furthermore, they maintain that the
provision rarely causes hardship because by and large the people affected are reasonably well off
as most of thembecause by definition they also receive government pensions from non-covered work. The
. The guarantee provision ensures that the
reduction in Social Security benefits cannot exceed half of
the pension from non-covered work.
In addition, the impact of the WEP is reduced for workers
who spend 21 to 29 years in Social
Security-covered work, and is eliminated for persons who
spend 30 years or more in Social
Security-covered work.
Arguments Against the Windfall Elimination Provision
Some opponents believe the provision is unfair because it substantially reduces a benefit that
workers may have included in their retirement plans. Others criticize how the provision works.
They say the arbitrary 40% factor in the windfall elimination formula is an imprecise way to
determine the actual windfall when applied to individual cases. Analysts
The WEP’s Impact on Low-Income Workers
The impact of the WEP on low-income workers has been the subject of debate. Jeffrey Brown
and Scott Weisbenner (hereinafter referred to as “Brown and Weisbenner”) point out two reasons
why the WEP can be regressive. 8 First, because the WEP adjustment is confined to the first bracket
bracket of the benefit formula ($744 in 2009761 in 2010), it causes a proportionally larger reduction in
benefits for
workers with lower AIME.AIMEs and benefit amounts.9 Second, a high earner is more
likely than a low earner to cross the
“substantial work” threshold for accumulating years of
covered earnings (in 20092010 this threshold is
$19,800 of Social-Security covered earnings);
therefore, high earners are more likely to benefit
from the phase-provision that phases out of the WEP
for persons with between 2021 and 30 years of covered
employment. 4
4
See, for example, Jeffrey R. Brown and Scott Weisbenner, The Distributional Effects of the Social Security Windfall
Elimination Provision, National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston, MA, September 2008.
Congressional Research Service
3
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
employment.
Brown and Weisbenner found that the WEP does reduce benefits disproportionately for lower
earning households than for higher earning households. For some high-income households,
applying the WEP to covered earnings even provides a higher replacement rate than if the WEP
8
Jeffrey R. Brown and Scott Weisbenner, The Distributional Effects of the Social Security Windfall Elimination
Provision, NBER and the Social Security Administration, September 5, 2008, pp 8-13, http://www.nber.org/programs/
ag/rrc/books&papers.html.
9
For example, a worker with an AIME of $4,000 would be entitled to a PIA of $1,721.38 before a WEP reduction of
$380.50 per month, which would represent a reduction of 22% in this worker’s benefit. By contrast, the worker shown
in Table 2 with an AIME of $1,500 would be entitled to a benefit of $921.38 before the WEP reduction of $380.50,
representing a cut of 41% to this worker’s benefit (CRS calculations).
Congressional Research Service
6
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
were applied proportionately to all earnings, covered and non-covered. Brown and Weisbenner
also found that the WEP can also lead to large changes in Social Security replacement rates based
on small changes in covered earnings, particularly when a small increase in covered earnings
carries a person over the threshold for an additional year of substantial covered earnings, leading
to a modification in the WEP formula.
SSA estimated that in 2000, 3.5% of recipients affected by the WEP had incomes below the
poverty line. For comparison purposes, at that time 8.5% of all Social Security beneficiaries age
65 and older had incomes below the poverty line and 11.3% of the general population had
incomes below the poverty line. 10 A potential conclusion is that persons who are subject to the
WEP, who by definition also have pensions from non-covered employment, face a somewhat
reduced risk of poverty compared to other Social Security beneficiaries.
Recent Legislation
In the 111th Congress, Representative Howard Berman has introduced H.R. 235, the Social
Security Fairness Act of 2009. S. 484, the companion bill to H.R. 235 in the Senate, was
introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein. H.R. 235 and S. 484 would repeal the WEP starting in
January, 2010. The Social Security Administration (SSA), in an estimate from 2007, found that
full repeal of the WEP would cost approximately $40.1 billion between 2008 and 2017. In the
long run, SSA estimates that eliminating the WEP would cost 0.05% of taxable payroll (causing
an increase in Social Security’s long-range deficit of about 3%)
Representative Kevin Brady introduced H.R. 1221, the Public Servant Retirement Protection Act
(PSRPA) of 2009.511 Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced a companion bill, S. 490, in the
Senate. The PSRPA would eliminate the current-law WEP and substitute a new formula for those
first entering non-Social Security-covered employment one year after the bill’s enactment.
Individuals who had worked in non-covered employment prior to this date would receive the
higher of: (a) the current law benefit including the WEP; or (b) the benefit calculated by the new
formula. Under the new formula, a PIA would be computed using both covered and non-covered
wages, and then multiplied by the ratio of earnings worked in Social Security-covered
employment to earnings in both covered and non-covered employment (where earnings are
expressed as average monthly earnings, indexed to wage inflation). SSA’s Office of the Actuary
estimated in 2007 that a similar proposal would have cost $4.6 billion from 2008-2017 and in the
long run would have cost 0.01% of taxable payroll (causing an increase in Social Security’s longterm deficit of about 0.5%).
Representative Frank introduced H.R. 2145, the “Windfall Elimination Provision Relief Act of
2009,” which would eliminate the WEP for persons whose combined monthly income from
Social Security and a pension from non-covered employment falls below $2,500 in 2009
(adjusted for the changes in the national average wage index). The bill would phase in the WEP
10
These are the most recent estimates available. Poverty rates were calculated by David Weaver of the Social Security
Administration’s Office of Retirement Policy using the March 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS). Poverty status is
taken directly from the CPS and is thus subject to errors in the reporting of income. The sample size for the WEP
poverty rate is relatively small (230 cases) and only includes persons for whom SSA administrative records could be
matched.
11
For additional information on the PSRPA, please refer to CRS Report RL32477, Social Security: The Public Servant
Retirement Protection Act (H.R. 2772/S. 1647), by Laura Haltzel.
Congressional Research Service
7
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
for those with combined monthly incomes of between $2,500 and $3,334. For those with
combined monthly incomes (Social Security plus pension from non-covered employment)
exceeding $3,334, the WEP would be fully applicable.
Representative Rohrabacher introduced H.R. 2286, the “Social Security Exemption Relief Act of
2009,” which would allow an employee in a position that is not currently covered by Social
Security to elect, irrevocably, to have his or her employment covered by Social Security and
subject to Social Security taxes.
5
For additional information on the PSRPA, please refer to CRS Report RL32477, Social Security: The Public Servant
Retirement Protection Act (H.R. 2772/S. 1647), by Laura Haltzel.
Congressional Research Service
4
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Author Contact Information
Alison M. Shelton
Analyst in Income Security
ashelton@crs.loc.gov, 7-9558
Congressional Research Service
58