Social Security: The Windfall Elimination
Provision (WEP)
Christine Scott
Specialist in Social Policy
January 8, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
98-35
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared 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 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 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 .................................................................................................... 5
Arguments for the Windfall Elimination Provision ................................................................... 6
Arguments Against the Windfall Elimination Provision ........................................................... 6
The WEP’s Impact on Low-Income Workers ............................................................................ 6
Tables
Table 1. Social Security Benefit Formula in 2013 ........................................................................... 1
Table 2. Monthly PIA for a Worker With Average Indexed Monthly Earnings of $1,500
and Retiring in 2013 ..................................................................................................................... 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 2011 ............ 4
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 7
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 7
Congressional Research Service
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Background
The Social Security benefit formula is designed so that workers with low average lifetime
earnings in Social Security-covered employment receive a benefit that is a larger proportion of
their earnings than do workers with high average lifetime earnings. The benefit formula does not
distinguish, however, between workers who have low average earnings because they worked for
many years at low wages in Social Security-covered employment and workers who have low
average earnings because they worked briefly in Social Security-covered employment. The
generous benefit that would be provided to workers with short careers in Social Security-covered
employment—in particular, workers who have split their careers between Social Security-covered
and non-covered employment—is sometimes referred to as a “windfall†that would exist in the
absence of the windfall elimination provision (WEP). The WEP reduces the Social Security
benefits of workers who also have pension benefits from employment not covered by Social
Security.
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). The worker’s earning history is indexed
to wage growth to bring earlier years of his or her earnings up to a comparable, current basis.
Average 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 to provide a progressive benefit. 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 the age of 62, die, or become disabled in
2013, the PIA is determined in Table 1 as follows:
Table 1. Social Security Benefit Formula in 2013
Factor
Average Indexed Monthly Earnings
90%
of the first $791, plus
32%
of AIME over $791 and through $4,768, plus
15%
of AIME over $4,768
The averaging provision in the benefit formula tends to cause workers with short careers in Social
Security-covered employment to have low AIMEs, similar to persons who worked for low wages
in covered employment throughout their careers. This is because years of zero covered earnings
are entered as zeros into the formula that averages the worker’s wage history over 35 years. For
example, a person with 10 years in Social Security-covered employment would have an AIME
that reflects 25 years of zero earnings.
Consequently, for a worker with a low AIME because she split her career between covered and
non-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
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.
Congressional Research Service
1
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
wage level. The higher replacement rate2 for workers who have split their careers between Social
Security-covered and non-covered jobs is sometimes referred to as a “windfall.â€3
A different Social Security benefit formula, referred to as the “windfall elimination provision,â€
applies to many workers who are entitled to Social Security as well as 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).4 Under these rules, the 90% factor in the
first bracket of the formula is replaced by a factor of 40%. The effect is to lower the proportion of
earnings in the first bracket that are converted to benefits. Table 2 illustrates how the regular and
WEP provisions work in 2013.
Table 2. Monthly PIA for a Worker With Average Indexed Monthly
Earnings of $1,500 and Retiring in 2013
Regular Formula
Windfall Elimination Formula
90% of first $791
$711.90 40% of first $791
$316.40
32% of earnings over $791 and
$226.88 32% of earnings over $791 and
$226.88
through $4,768
through $4,768
15% over $4,768
0.00 15% over $4,768
0.00
Total $938.78
Total $543.28
Source: Calculations were made by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: To simplify the example, rounding conventions that would normal y apply are not used here.
Under the WEP formula, the benefit for the worker is reduced by $395.50 ($938.78 - $543.28) per
month relative to the regular benefit formula. Note that the WEP reduction is limited to the first
bracket in the AIME formula (90% vs. 40% formula rates), while the 32% and 15% factors for
the second and third brackets are the same as in the regular benefit formula. As a result, for AIME
amounts that exceed the first formula threshold of $791, the amount of the WEP reduction
remains a flat $395.50 per month. For example, if the worker had an AIME of $4,000 instead of
$1,500, the WEP reduction would still be $395.50 per month. The WEP therefore causes a
proportionally larger reduction in benefits for workers with lower AIMEs and monthly benefit
amounts. 5
A “guarantee†in the WEP provision ensures that a worker’s WEP reduction cannot exceed more
than one half of the government pension based on the worker’s non-covered work. This
2 A worker’s replacement rate is the ratio of his or her Social Security benefit to pre-retirement income.
3 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 Christine Scott.
4 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.
5 For the worker shown in Table 2, with an AIME of $1,500 and a monthly benefit of $938.78 under the regular benefit
formula in 2013, the WEP reduction of $395.50 represents a 42% cut to the regular formula monthly benefit amount.
By comparison, a worker with an AIME of $4,000 would be entitled to a PIA of $1,738.78 under the 2013 regular
benefit formula, and the same WEP reduction of $395.50 per month would represent a 23% reduction in this worker’s
monthly benefit amount (CRS calculations).
Congressional Research Service
2
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
“guarantee†is designed to help protect workers with low non-covered pensions and also ensures
that the WEP can never completely eliminate a worker’s Social Security benefit. The WEP also
exempts workers who have 30 or more years of “substantial†employment covered under 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
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
First
factor in
formula 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%
Maximum
dollar
amount
of
$395.50 $355.95 $316.40 $276.85 $237.30 $197.75 $158.20 $118.65 $79.10 $39.55 $0.00
monthly
WEP
reduction
in 2013a
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.
a. 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.
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
the age of 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 2011, about 1.4 million
Social Security beneficiaries were affected by the WEP, as shown in Table 4. About 1.3 million
people (91.9% ) affected by the WEP were retired workers. About 2.5% of all Social Security
beneficiaries (including disabled and spouse beneficiaries), and about 3.5% of all retired worker
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 2013, the “old-law†taxable wage
base is equal to $84,300, therefore to earn credit for one year of “substantial†employment under the WEP a worker
would have to earn at least $21,075 in Social Security-covered employment.
Congressional Research Service
3
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
beneficiaries, were affected by the WEP in December 2011.7 Of retired workers affected by the
WEP, approximately 62.7% were men.8
Table 4. Number of Beneficiaries in Current Payment Status with
Benefits Affected by Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP),
by State and Type of Benefit, December 2011
Type of Benefit
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State Total
workers
workers
children
Total 1,370,688
1,259,310
17,958
93,420
Alabama 16,905
15,219
346
1,340
Alaska 7,361
6,915
106
340
Arizona 25,357
23,483
295
1,579
Arkansas 9,685
8,943
213
529
California 181,048
167,675
2,125
11,248
Colorado 41,714
38,952
593
2,169
Connecticut 13,507
12,796
175
536
Delaware 3,110
2,912
48
150
District of Columbia
7,360
6,968
131
261
Florida 77,311
71,317
877
5,117
Georgia 39,401
36,901
525
1,975
Hawai 8,494
7,787
77
630
Idaho 5,948
5,472
76
400
Illinois 70,984
67,044
601
3,339
Indiana 13,534
12,544
226
764
Iowa 7,251
6,766
78
407
Kansas 7,898
7,334
128
436
Kentucky 17,725
16,376
345
1,004
Louisiana 27,755
25,053
628
2,074
Maine 12,697
11,899
176
622
Maryland 40,393
37,768
511
2,114
Massachusetts 49,106
46,490
692
1,924
Michigan 17,121
15,682
290
1,149
Minnesota 15,137
14,190
151
796
Mississippi 8,423
7,715
164
544
7 Social Security data on the Social Security beneficiary and retired worker populations are available from the Monthly
Statistical Snapshot, December 2011, at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/index.html.
8 Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, January 27, 2012, unpublished table
W01.
Congressional Research Service
4
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
Type of Benefit
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State Total
workers
workers
children
Missouri 29,024
27,359
423
1,242
Montana 5,008
4,619
66
323
Nebraska 4,728
4,441
37
250
Nevada 20,324
19,244
232
848
New Hampshire
6,143
5,734
109
300
New Jersey
19,651
18,041
362
1,248
New Mexico
11,378
10,215
178
985
New York
27,898
25,548
477
1,873
North Carolina
24,721
22,972
336
1,413
North Dakota
2,202
2,036
24
142
Ohio 99,306
92,739
1,153
5,414
Oklahoma 15,742
14,324
314
1,104
Oregon 13,472
12,514
158
800
Pennsylvania 31,228
28,708
545
1,975
Rhode Island
4,373
4,085
85
203
South Carolina
15,226
14,033
227
966
South Dakota
3,420
3,208
34
178
Tennessee 17,014
15,624
248
1,142
Texas 120,032
110,935
1,530
7,567
Utah 11,503
10,361
154
988
Vermont 2,255
2,087
20
148
Virginia 42,245
38,909
449
2,887
Washington 25,938
23,529
318
2,091
West Virginia
5,548
4,952
126
470
Wisconsin 10,534
9,821
116
597
Wyoming 2,081
1,935
28
118
Outlying areas and foreign countries
74,469
57,136
632
16,701
Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, January 27, 2012,
unpublished Table B.
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
Congressional Research Service
5
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
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.9
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 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. 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
because by definition they also receive government pensions from non-covered work. The
guarantee provision ensures that the reduction in Social Security benefits cannot exceed half of
the pension from non-covered work, which protects persons with small pensions 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.
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 Weisbennerâ€) point out two reasons
why the WEP can be regressive.10 First, because the WEP adjustment is confined to the first
bracket of the benefit formula ($791 in 2013), it causes a proportionally larger reduction in
benefits for workers with lower AIMEs and benefit amounts. Second, a high earner is more likely
9 Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1900, 98th Cong., March 24, 1983 (Washington: GPO, 1983), p. 120.
10 Jeffrey R. Brown and Scott Weisbenner, The Distributional Effects of the Social Security Windfall Elimination
Provision, NBER, Working Paper no. 18342, August 2012, http://www.nber.org/papers/w18342.
Congressional Research Service
6
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)
than a low earner to cross the “substantial work†threshold for accumulating years of covered
earnings (in 2013 this threshold is $21,075 in Social Security-covered earnings); therefore, high
earners are more likely to benefit from the provision that phases out of the WEP for persons with
between 21 and 30 years of covered 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
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 aged
65 and older had incomes below the poverty line and 11.3% of the general population had
incomes below the poverty line.11 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 with other Social Security beneficiaries.
Author Contact Information
Christine Scott
Specialist in Social Policy
cscott@crs.loc.gov, 7-7366
Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by Alison M. Shelton, a former Analyst at the Congressional Research
Service. All questions should be directed to the current author.
11 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
7