Social Security: The Windfall Elimination
Provision (WEP)
Updated November 16, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
98-35

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Summary
Social Security is a work-based, federal insurance program that provides income support to
workers and their eligible family members in the event of the worker’s retirement, disability, or
death. A worker’s employment or self-employment is considered covered by Social Security if the
services performed in that job result in earnings that are taxable and creditable for program
purposes. Although participation in Social Security is compulsory for most workers, about 6% of
al workers in paid employment or self-employment are not covered by Social Security.
The windfall elimination provision (WEP) is a modified benefit formula that reduces the Social
Security benefits of certain retired or disabled workers who are also entitled to pension benefits
based on earnings from jobs that were not covered by Social Security and thus not subject to the
Social Security payroll tax. Its purpose is to remove an unintended advantage or “windfal ” that
these workers would otherwise receive as a result of the interaction between the regular Social
Security benefit formula and the workers’ relatively short careers in Social Security-covered
employment.
In December 2020, about 1.9 mil ion people (or about 3% of al Social Security beneficiaries)
were affected by the WEP. Those workers mainly include state and local government employees
covered by alternative staff-retirement systems as wel as most permanent civilian federal
employees hired before January 1, 1984, who are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System
(CSRS).
WEP’s supporters argue that the formula is a reasonable means to prevent overgenerous payments
and unintended benefits to people who have earnings not covered by Social Security and receive
pensions from noncovered work. Opponents argue that the provision substantial y reduces a
benefit that workers may have included in their retirement plans, and it reduces benefits
disproportionately for lower-earning households. Others criticize the current WEP formula as an
imprecise way to determine the actual windfal when applied to individual cases.
Recent legislation has general y proposed either to eliminate the provision for al or some affected
beneficiaries, or replace the current-law provision with a new proportional formula based on past
earnings from both covered and noncovered employment.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 20 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 16

Congressional Research Service

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Introduction
Social Security provides insured workers and their eligible family members with a measure of
protection against the loss of income due to the worker’s retirement, disability, or death. The
amount of the monthly benefit payable to workers and their family members is based on the
worker’s career-average earnings from jobs covered by Social Security (i.e., jobs in which the
worker’s earnings were subject to the Social Security payroll tax).1 The Social Security benefit
formula is weighted to replace a greater share of career-average earnings for low-paid workers
than for high-paid workers. This means that low-paid workers receive relatively high benefits in
relation to their payroll tax contributions, although the dollar amount of their benefits is lower
than that provided to high-paid workers.
The benefit formula, however, cannot distinguish between workers who have low career-average
earnings because they worked for many years at low earnings in Social Security-covered
employment and workers who appear to have low career-average earnings because they worked
for many years in jobs not covered by Social Security. (Those years show up as zeros in their
Social Security earnings records, which, when averaged, lower their career earnings from covered
work.) Consequently, workers who split their careers between covered and noncovered
employment—even highly paid ones—may also receive the advantage of the weighted formula.
The windfall elimination provision (WEP) is a modified benefit formula designed to remove the
unintended advantage, or “windfal ,” of the regular benefit formula for certain retired or disabled
workers who spent less than full careers in covered employment and who are also entitled to
pension benefits based on earnings from jobs not covered by Social Security. The reduction in
initial benefits caused by the WEP is designed to place affected workers in approximately the
same position they would have been in had all their earnings been covered by Social Security.
Background on the Social Security Benefit Formula
Workers qualify for Social Security benefits if they worked and paid Social Security payroll taxes
for a sufficient amount of time in covered employment.2 Retired workers need at least 40 earnings
credits (or about 10 years of covered work), whereas disabled workers general y need fewer
earnings credits.3 Initial benefits are based on a worker’s career-average earnings from jobs
covered by Social Security. In computing the initial benefit amount, a worker’s annual taxable
earnings are indexed (i.e., adjusted) to average wage growth in the national economy.4 This is
done to bring earlier years of earnings up to a comparable, current basis. Next, a summarized
measure of a worker’s career-average earnings is found by totaling the highest 35 years of

1 For the purposes of this report, the term payroll tax includes the Social Security self-employment tax.
2 Unless otherwise noted, the term covered employment includes self-employment covered by Social Security.
3 A worker may earn up to four earnings credits per calendar year. In 2021, a worker earns one credit for each $1,470 of
covered earnings, up to a maximum of four credits for covered earnings of $5, 880 or more. Earnings credits are also
called quarters of coverage. See Social Security Administration (SSA), How You Earn Credits, Publication No. 05-
10072, 2021, https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10072.pdf.
4 Years of earnings are indexed up to the second calendar year before the year of earliest eligibility (i.e., the year in
which the worker first attains aged 62, becomes disabled, or dies). Years of earnings after the last indexing year are
counted in nominal (i.e., unadjusted) dollars.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

covered earnings and then dividing by 35.5 After that, a monthly average, known as average
indexed monthly earnings (AIME), is found by dividing the annual average by 12.
Once the worker’s AIME has been derived, it is then entered into the Social Security benefit
formula to produce the worker’s initial benefit amount. The benefit formula is progressive,
replacing a greater share of career-average earnings for low-paid workers than for high-paid
workers. The benefit formula applies three factors—90%, 32%, and 15%—to three different
levels, or brackets, of AIME. The result is known as the primary insurance amount (PIA) and is
rounded down to the nearest 10 cents. The PIA is the worker’s basic benefit before any
adjustments are applied.6 The benefit formula applicable to a given worker is based on the
individual’s earliest eligibility year (ELY), that is, the year in which the worker first attains age
62, becomes disabled, or dies.7 For workers whose ELY is 2021, the PIA is determined as follows
in Table 1.
Table 1. Social Security Benefit Formula for
Workers Who First Become Eligible in 2021
Factor
Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME)
90%
of the first $996, plus
32%
of AIME over $996 and through $6,002 (if any), plus
15%
of AIME over $6,002 (if any)
Source: CRS, based on Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT), “Benefit
Formula Bend Points,” https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/bendpoints.html.
The averaging provision in the benefit formula tends to cause workers with short careers in Social
Security-covered employment to have low AIMEs, even if they had high earnings in their
noncovered career. This results in these workers having AIMEs that are similar to those of people
who worked for low earnings 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
earnings 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, even if that person
worked for 25 years in a high-paying, noncovered career.
Consequently, for a worker whose AIME is low because his or her career was split between
covered and noncovered employment, the benefit formula replaces more of covered earnings at
the 90% rate than if the worker had spent a full 35-year career in covered employment at the same
earnings level. The higher replacement rate8 for workers who have split their careers between
Social Security-covered and noncovered jobs is sometimes referred to as a “windfal .”9

5 T he number of benefit computation years for disabled or deceased workers may be fewer than 35 years.
6 T he worker’s primary insurance amount (PIA) is subsequently adjusted to account for inflation through cost-of-living
adjustments (COLAs). Additional adjustments may be made to the PIA to account for early retirement, delayed
retirement, or certain other factors.
7 Although the factors in the formula are fixed in law, the dollar amounts defining the brackets, also known as bend
points, are adjusted annually for average earnings growth in the national economy. Because the bend points change
each year, the benefit formula for a worker with an earliest eligibility year (ELY) in 2021 is different from the benefit
formula for a worker with an ELY in any other year. For bend point amount for years prior to 20 21, see SSA, Office of
the Chief Actuary (OCACT ), “Benefit Formula Bend Points,” https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/bendpoints.html.
8 T he replacement rate is the ratio of the program benefit to a worker’s prior earnings.
9 T he windfall elimination provision (WEP) is sometimes confused with the government pension offset (GPO), which
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 link to page 7 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

How the Windfall Elimination Provision Works
A different Social Security benefit formula, known informal y as the windfall elimination
provision, applies to certain workers who are entitled to Social Security benefits as wel as to
pension benefits from employment not covered by Social Security.10 Under the WEP, the 90%
factor in the first bracket of the formula is reduced to as low as 40%. The effect is to lower the
proportion of earnings in the first bracket that are converted to benefits. Table 2 il ustrates how
the regular benefit formula and the WEP work in 2021 for someone with a 40% factor.
Table 2. Hypothetical Scenario: PIA for a Worker with AIME of $1,500 Who
Becomes Eligible in 2021 and Has 20 Years of Substantial Coverage
Regular Formula
WEP Formula
90% of first $996
$896.40 40% of first $996
$398.40
32% of earnings over $996
161.28 32% of earnings over $996
161.28
and through $6,002
and through $6,002
15% over $6,002
0.00 15% over $6,002
0.00
Total after rounding
$1,057.60 Total after rounding
$559.60
Source: CRS.
Note: PIA = Primary Insurance Amount. AIME = Average Indexed Monthly Earnings. By law, the PIA is rounded
down to nearest 10 cents.
In this scenario, the monthly benefit is $498.00 lower under the WEP than under the regular
benefit formula ($1,057.60 minus $559.60). Note that the WEP reduction is limited to the first
bracket in the AIME formula (90% vs. 40%), while the 32% and 15% factors for the second and
third brackets are unchanged. As a result, for AIME amounts that exceed the first formula
threshold of $996, the WEP reduction remains a flat $498 per month. For example, if the worker
had an AIME of $4,000 instead of $1,500, the WEP reduction would stil be $498 per month. The
WEP therefore causes a proportional y larger reduction in benefits for workers with lower AIMEs
and monthly benefit amounts.11
A guarantee in the WEP ensures that the WEP reduction cannot exceed half of the noncovered
pension based on the worker’s noncovered work. This guarantee is designed to help protect
workers with low pensions from noncovered work. The WEP does not apply to workers who have
30 or more years of substantial employment covered under Social Security, with an adjusted

reduces Social Security benefits paid to spouses and widow(er)s of insured workers if the spouse or widow(er) also
receives a pension based on government employment not covered by Social Security. See CRS Report RL32453, Social
Security: The Governm ent Pension Offset (GPO).
10 Section 215(a)(7) and (d)(3) of the Social Security Act; 42 U.S.C. §415(a)(7) and (d)(3). See also 20 C.F.R.
§§404.213 and 404.243. Moreover, see SSA, Program Operations Manual System, “RS 00605.360 WEP
Applicability,” June 24, 2013, https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300605360. T he term windfall elimination
provision is not specified in statute or in SSA’s regulations.
11 For the worker shown in Table 2, with an AIME of $1,500 and a monthly benefit of $1,057.60 under the regular
benefit formula in 2021, the WEP reduction of $498.00 represents a cut of approximately 47% to the regular formula
monthly benefit amount. By comparison, a worker with an AIME of $4,000 would be e ntitled to a PIA of $1,857.60
under the 2021 regular benefit formula, and the same WEP reduction of $ 498.00 per month would represent a 27%
reduction in this worker’s monthly benefit amount.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

formula for workers with 21 to 29 years of substantial covered employment, as shown in Table
3.12
Table 3. Maximum WEP Reduction for Workers Who Become Eligible in 2021, by
Years of Substantial Coverage
Years of Social Security Coverage
20 or

fewer
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 dol ar amount of monthly WEP reduction for workers who first become eligible for Social Security in
2021a:

$498
$448
$398
$349
$299
$249
$199
$149
$100
$50
$0
Source: CRS analysis.
Notes: The WEP reduction may be lower than the amount shown because the reduction is limited to one-half
of the worker’s pension from noncovered employment. In addition, because the WEP reduces the initial benefit
amount before it is reduced or increased due to early retirement, delayed retirement credits (DRCs), cost-of-
living adjustments (COLAs), or other factors, the difference between the final benefit with the WEP and the final
benefit without the WEP may be less than or greater than the amounts shown.
a. The maximum dol ar amount of the monthly WEP reduction is based on a worker’s ELY. Because the dol ar
amounts defining the brackets in the benefit formula change each year, the maximum dol ar amount of the
WEP reduction for a worker with an ELY of 2021 is different from the maximum deduction for a worker
with an ELY of any other year. For maximum WEP reduction amounts for workers with ELYs prior to
2021, see SSA, “Windfal Elimination Provision (WEP) Chart,” https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/wep-
chart.html.
The WEP applies to benefits payable to retired or disabled workers who meet the criteria above
and to their eligible dependents; however, it does not apply to benefits payable to survivors of
deceased insured workers. Groups of workers likely to be affected by the WEP include certain
state and local government employees who are covered by alternative pension plans through their
employers13 and most permanent civilian federal employees hired before January 1, 1984, who
are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).14 The WEP does not apply to
 federal employees performing service on January 1, 1984, to which coverage was
extended on that date by reason of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (P.L.
98-21);

12 For determining years of coverage after 1978 for individuals with pensions from noncovered employment,
“substantial coverage” is defined as 25% of the “old law” Social Security maximum taxable earnings base for each year
in question. T he old law maximum t axable earnings base refers to the earnings base that would have been in effect had
the Social Security Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-216) not been enacted. In 2021, the old-law taxable earnings base is
equal to $106,200; therefore, to earn credit for one year of substantial employment under the WEP, a worker would
have to earn at least $26,550 in Social Security-covered employment. For the thresholds for previous years, see SSA,
OCACT , “Old-Law Base and Year of Coverage,” https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/yoc.html.
13 See Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Federal-State Reference Guide, IRS Publication
963 (Rev. 7-2020), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p963.pdf.
14 See CRS Report 98-810, Federal Employees’ Retirement System: Benefits and Financing.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 9 link to page 11 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

 employees of a nonprofit organization who were exempt from Social Security
coverage on December 31, 1983, and who became covered for the first time on
January 1, 1984, under P.L. 98-21;
 workers who attained age 62, became disabled, or were first eligible for a
pension from noncovered employment before 1986;
 workers who receive foreign pension payments after 1994 that are based on a
totalization agreement with the United States;15
 workers whose only noncovered pension is based on earnings from noncovered
domestic or foreign employment before 1957;16 and
 railroad workers whose only noncovered pension is based on earnings from
employment covered by the Railroad Retirement Act.17
The Number of People Affected by the WEP
According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), as of December 2020, about 1.9 mil ion
Social Security beneficiaries were affected by the WEP (Table 4). The overwhelming majority of
those affected (about 94%) were retired workers. Approximately 3% of al Social Security
beneficiaries (including disabled workers and dependent beneficiaries) and 4% of al retired-
worker beneficiaries were affected by the WEP in December 2020.18 Of retired workers affected
by the WEP, approximately 56% were men (Table 5).
Table 4. Number of Social Security Beneficiaries in Current Payment Status with
Benefits Affected by WEP, by State and Type of Beneficiary: December 2020

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
Total
Workers
Workers
Children
Total
1,948,427
1,836,538
12,520
99,369
Alabama
18,233
17,193
158
882
Alaska
12,542
12,004
60
478
Arizona
38,103
36,106
213
1,784
Arkansas
10,642
10,147
117
378
California
273,399
258,520
1,639
13,240
Colorado
68,473
65,368
772
2,333
Connecticut
20,681
19,910
100
671
Delaware
4,454
4,262
34
158
District of Columbia
7,299
7,085
42
172

15 Totalization agreements are bilateral agreements that provide limited coordination of the U.S. Social Security
program with comparable social insurance programs of other countries. T he agreements are intended primarily to
eliminate dual Social Security taxation based on the same work and provide benefit protection for workers who divide
their careers between the United States and a foreign country.
16 T he WEP does not apply in cases where the pension is based, in part, on noncovered military reserve duty before
1988 but after 1956.
17 SSA, POMS, “ RS 00605.362 Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) Exceptions,” November 1, 2019,
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0300605362.
18 Data on the total Social Security beneficiary and retired-worker populations used in these calculations are from SSA,
OCACT , “Benefits Paid By T ype Of Beneficiary,” https://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/icp.html.
Congressional Research Service

5

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
Total
Workers
Workers
Children
Florida
107,178
101,174
575
5,429
Georgia
56,383
54,141
379
1,863
Hawai
11,492
10,739
40
713
Idaho
9,107
8,598
68
441
Il inois
99,640
95,836
381
3,423
Indiana
17,698
16,776
148
774
Iowa
8,338
7,983
69
286
Kansas
9,563
9,110
75
378
Kentucky
25,207
24,185
172
850
Louisiana
48,276
45,681
581
2,014
Maine
19,423
18,764
78
581
Maryland
47,253
45,178
251
1,824
Massachusetts
83,156
80,073
580
2,503
Michigan
22,510
21,213
190
1,107
Minnesota
16,698
16,031
75
592
Mississippi
9,757
9,267
86
404
Missouri
40,780
39,536
222
1,022
Montana
6,611
6,290
32
289
Nebraska
5,622
5,362
40
220
Nevada
35,773
34,422
217
1,134
New Hampshire
8,880
8,482
83
315
New Jersey
23,132
21,662
196
1,274
New Mexico
13,939
13,065
115
759
New York
32,893
30,673
229
1,991
North Carolina
31,696
30,259
190
1,247
North Dakota
2,317
2,219
12
86
Ohio
152,863
146,441
1,364
5,058
Oklahoma
17,519
16,629
146
744
Oregon
18,614
17,664
84
866
Pennsylvania
36,813
34,770
280
1,763
Rhode Island
6,058
5,847
46
165
South Carolina
19,418
18,501
106
811
South Dakota
4,004
3,859
20
125
Tennessee
22,007
20,944
131
932
Texas
195,135
185,689
1,165
8,281
Utah
14,341
13,346
94
901
Vermont
2,674
2,542
7
125
Virginia
48,697
46,132
149
2,416
Washington
34,712
32,488
148
2,076
West Virginia
6,354
5,924
69
361
Wisconsin
12,679
12,124
60
495
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 19 link to page 19 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
Total
Workers
Workers
Children
Wyoming
2,635
2,519
20
96
Outlying Areas and
106,756
83,805
412
22,539
Foreign Countries
Source: CRS, based on unpublished data from Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of Research,
Evaluation, and Statistics (ORES), Table B, January 2021.
Table 5. Number of Social Security Worker Beneficiaries in Current Payment Status
with Benefits Affected by WEP, by Gender and Type of Beneficiary, December 2020
Gender
All Workers
Retired Workers
Disabled Workers
All Beneficiaries
1,849,058
1,836,538
12,520
Women
816,502
810,447
6,055
Men
1,032,556
1,026,091
6,465
Source: CRS, based on unpublished data from SSA, ORES, Table W01, January 2021.
For data on the share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the WEP in December 2020, by
state, see Table A-1 in the Appendix.
Legislative History and Rationale
The WEP was enacted in 1983 as part of major amendments (P.L. 98-21) 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 bil that would have substituted a 61% factor for the regular 90%
factor and a Senate proposal that would have substituted a 32% factor.19
The purpose of the 1983 provision was to remove an unintended advantage that the regular Social
Security benefit formula provided to certain retired or disabled worker-beneficiaries who were
also entitled to pension benefits based on earnings from jobs not subject to the Social Security
payroll tax. 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 career-
average earnings than the benefit provided to workers with high career-average earnings.
However, the formula does not differentiate between those who worked in low -paid jobs
throughout their careers and other workers who appear to have been low paid because they
worked many years in jobs not covered by Social Security and few years in covered jobs. 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,
because their few years of covered earnings were averaged over their entire working career to
determine the average covered earnings on which their Social Security benefits were based. The
WEP is intended to place affected workers in approximately the same position they would have
been in had all their earnings been covered by Social Security.

19 U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, Social Security Amendments of 1983, conference report to accompany
H.R. 1900, 98th Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 1983, H.Rept. 98-47 (Washington: GPO, 1983), pp. 120-121,
http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Conf-98-47.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

7

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Arguments for the WEP
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 wel off
because by definition they also receive pensions from noncovered work. The guarantee provision
ensures that the reduction in Social Security benefits cannot exceed half of the pension from
noncovered work, which protects people with smal pensions from noncovered 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 people who spend 30 years or more in Social Security-
covered work.
Arguments Against the WEP
Some opponents believe the provision is unfair because it substantial y 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 windfal elimination formula is an imprecise way to
determine the actual windfal when applied to individual cases.20
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 “Brown and Weisbenner”) point out two reasons why the WEP
can be regressive.21 First, because the WEP adjustment is confined to the first bracket of career-
average earnings in the benefit formula ($996 in 2021), it causes a proportional y larger reduction
in benefits for workers with lower AIMEs and benefit amounts. Second, a high earner is more
likely than a low earner to cross the “substantial work” threshold for accumulating years of
covered earnings (in 2021 this threshold is $26,550 in Social Security-covered earnings);
therefore, high earners are more likely to benefit from the provision that phases out the WEP for
people with between 21 and 29 years of covered employment.
Brown and Weisbenner found that the WEP does reduce benefits disproportionately for lower-
earning households.22 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 al
earnings, covered and noncovered. Brown and Weisbenner found that the WEP can also lead to
large changes in Social Security replacement rates based on smal changes in covered earnings,
particularly when a smal increase in covered earnings carries a person over the threshold for an
additional year of substantial covered earnings, leading to an adjustment in the WEP formula
applied to the AIME.

20 See, for example, the Social Security Advisory Board, The Windfall Elimination Provision: It’s Time to Correct the
Math, October 1, 2015, http://www.ssab.gov/Portals/0/OUR_WORK/REPORT S/WEP_Position_Paper_2015.pdf.
21 Jeffrey R. Brown and Scot t Weisbenner, “T he Distributional Effects of the Social Security Windfall Elimination
Provision,” Journal of Pension Econom ics and Finance, vol. 12, iss. 04 (October 2013), pp. 415-434,
http://business.illinois.edu/weisbenn/RESEARCH/PAPERS/ JPEF_Brown_Weisbenner.pdf.
22 For more information, see CRS Report R46194, The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) in Social Security:
Com paring Current Law with Proposed Proportional Form ulas.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 13 link to page 13

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Noncovered Pensions for Beneficiaries Affected by
the WEP
The WEP applies to Social Security beneficiaries who are entitled to (i.e., receiving) a pension
based on earnings that were not covered by Social Security. SSA periodical y provides data on
those noncovered pension amounts for Social Security beneficiaries affected by the WEP. Figure
1 shows the distribution of Social Security WEP-affected beneficiaries who first became eligible
for benefits in 2017, by noncovered pension amount and gender. As of December 2020, about
21% of those beneficiaries received a noncovered pension amount less than $1,000 per month,
approximately 52% received a monthly amount between $1,000 and $3,999, and 27% received a
monthly amount of $4,000 or more. Among those WEP-affected beneficiaries, women tended to
have a lower noncovered pension amount than men on average.
Figure 1. Distribution of WEP-Affected Social Security Beneficiaries by Monthly
Noncovered Pension Amount and Gender, December 2020
Among Social Security beneficiaries with first eligibility in 2017

Source: CRS, based on unpublished data from SSA’s ORES, Table W12, January 2021.
Notes: Data reflects beneficiaries for whom noncovered pension amounts are available. The monthly pension
amount represents the noncovered government pension amount at the time of initial filing for Social Security
benefits.
A worker who split his or her career between Social Security-covered and noncovered jobs may
receive both Social Security retired-worker benefits (subject to the WEP) and a noncovered
pension. In December 2020, among al Social Security worker beneficiaries who were affected by
the WEP, about 82% had 20 or fewer YOCs (substantial covered earnings under Social
Security).23 Usual y, the longer the individual worked in noncovered employment, the shorter the
employment in covered jobs (provided that the number of working years a person can work is
relatively stable). In this case, the worker would be likely to receive a relatively larger
noncovered pension amount and a smal er Social Security benefit. In December 2020, among
WEP-affected beneficiaries who first became eligible for Social Security in 2017, about 38% of

23 CRS, based on unpublished data from Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of Research, Evaluation, and
Statistics (ORES), T ables W01 and W06, January 2021.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

them received a monthly noncovered pension amount of $2,000 or more and a monthly Social
Security benefit below $600 after the effect of the WEP (see Figure 2).
However, some workers may work a relatively short career or at relatively low earnings in both
Social Security-covered and noncovered jobs, thus resulting in relatively low combined Social
Security and noncovered pension benefits. In December 2020, among WEP-affected beneficiaries
who became eligible for Social Security in 2017, about 11% of those beneficiaries received less
than $1,000 per month in noncovered pensions and less than $900 per month in Social Security
benefits (for a combined total below $1,900 per month). Another 9% received between $1,000-
1,999 per month in noncovered pensions and less than $600 per month in Social Security (for a
combined total greater than $1,000 and below $2,599 per month). This monthly benefit amount
does not include retirement income received from other sources (such as need-based benefits and
other government transfers, earnings, retirement savings, and asset income).
Figure 2. Distribution of WEP-Affected Social Security Beneficiaries by Monthly
Noncovered Pension Amount and Monthly Social Security Benefits, December 2020
Among Social Security beneficiaries with first eligibility in 2017

Source: CRS, based on unpublished data from SSA’s ORES, Table W16, January 2021.
Notes: Data reflects beneficiaries for whom noncovered pension amounts are available. The monthly pension
amount represents the noncovered government pension amount at the time of initial filing. Social Security
benefits are measured by the primary insurance amount after the effect of the WEP.
Recent Legislation on the WEP
Over the years, legislation has been introduced that would repeal or make changes to the WEP.
This section summarizes legislation introduced in the 116th Congress and the 117th Congress to
date.
Legislative Activity on the WEP in the 116th Congress
In the 116th Congress, several proposals were introduced that would have repealed, replaced, or
amended the WEP. None of these proposals was acted upon. These proposals are briefly
described below.
Congressional Research Service

10

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

H.R. 141 (the Social Security Fairness Act of 2019) and its companion bil , S. 521, were
introduced by Representative Rodney Davis on January 3, 2019, and Senator Sherrod Brown on
February 14, 2019, respectively. The legislation would have repealed the WEP and the
government pension offset (GPO), which reduces the Social Security benefits paid to spouses and
widow(er)s of insured workers if the spouse or widow(er) also receives a pension based on
government employment not covered by Social Security.24 The elimination of the WEP and GPO
would have applied to benefits payable for months after December 2019. In 2016 (the most recent
estimate available), SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) projected that repealing both
the WEP and the GPO would reduce the long-range actuarial balance (i.e., increase the net long-
term cost) of the combined Social Security trust funds by 0.13% of taxable payroll.25 The
OCACT estimated that repealing only the WEP would reduce the long-range actuarial balance of
the combined trust funds by 0.08% of taxable payroll.26
S. 710 (the Social Security Fairness for Firefighters and Police Officers Act) was introduced by
Senator Pat Toomey on March 7, 2019. The bil would have exempted certain firefighters and
police officers with five years of qualified service from the WEP and the GPO.27
Since 2004, legislation has reflected a different approach that would replace the WEP formula
under current law with a new proportional formula for new beneficiaries. Under this approach,
the proportional formula would apply the regular Social Security benefit formula to al past
earnings from covered and noncovered employment. The resulting benefit would then be reduced
by the ratio of career-average earnings from covered employment to career-average earnings from
both covered and noncovered employment (i.e., combined earnings). Based on the estimate from
OCACT, among al current beneficiaries in 2018, about 69% of those affected by the WEP would
receive an increase in Social Security benefits using the proportional formula, and the remaining
31% would receive a lower benefit. In addition, 13.5 mil ion beneficiaries who are not affected by
the current WEP would receive a lower benefit using the proportional formula.28 Most workers
who are not affected by the current WEP but would be affected by the proportional formula are
those with noncovered employment who have 30 or more years of substantial covered earnings,
or those with noncovered employment who are not receiving noncovered pension benefits; both
groups are exempt from the WEP under current law. To protect future beneficiaries from further
benefit reduction compared with the current law, the recent legislation based on the proportional
formula would have general y attempted to hold beneficiaries harmless to a certain degree by
providing the higher benefit of the current-law WEP or the proportional formula. This approach
was reflected in the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act (H.R. 3934 and S. 3401 in the 116th
Congress and H.R. 5834 in the 117th Congress) and the Public Servants Protection and Fairness

24 See CRS Report RL32453, Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO). See also CRS In Focus IF10203,
Social Security: The Windfall Elim ination Provision (WEP) and the Governm ent Pension Offset (GPO) .
25 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable Sherrod Brown, U.S. Senate, February 24, 2016,
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/SBrown_20160224.pdf. T he projection was based on the intermediate assumptions
of the 2015 Social Security trustees report. Taxable payroll is the total amount of earnings in the economy that is
subject to Social Security payroll and self-employment taxes (with some adjustments).
26 Informal cost estimate provided to CRS by OCACT on June 14, 2018. OCACT estimated that repealing only the
GPO would reduce the long-range actuarial balance of the combined trust funds by 0.06% of taxable payroll.
27 Qualified service is defined in 34 U.S.C. §10284.
28 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable Kevin Brady, U.S. House, July 24, 2019,
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/KBrady_20190724.pdf. T he projections are based on the intermediate assumptions
of the 2019 Social Security trustees report.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Act (H.R. 4540 in the 116th Congress and H.R. 2337 in the 117th Congress), as described below in
this section and the section “Legislative Activity on the WEP in the 117th Congress.”
H.R. 3934 (the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act) and its companion bil , S. 3401, were
introduced by Representative Kevin Brady on July 24, 2019, and by Senator Ted Cruz on March
5, 2020, respectively. The legislation would have replaced the WEP with a new proportional
formula for individuals who become eligible for Social Security benefits in 2022 or later.
Individuals becoming eligible between 2022 and 2060 would receive the higher of their benefit
under the current-law WEP or the proportional formula. The proposal would have also provided a
rebate payment starting in 2020 for workers (up to $100 per month) and their dependents (up to
$50 per month) affected by the current WEP. The rebate payments would have increased with
cost-of-living adjustments. In 2019, OCACT estimated that the legislation would increase
program cost by about $23.1 bil ion (mainly from the rebate) over the period 2020 through 2029,
and would have no significant effect on the Social Security trust funds’ long-range (75 years)
actuarial balance.29
H.R. 4540 (the Public Servants Protection and Fairness Act) was introduced by Representative
Richard E. Neal on September 27, 2019. Similar to H.R. 3934, the legislation would have
replaced the WEP with the new proportional formula for individuals who become eligible for
Social Security benefits in 2022 or later. However, unlike H.R. 3934, al individuals who become
eligible in 2022 or later would have received the higher of their benefit under the current-law
WEP or the proportional formula. Also, as under current law, workers with 30 or more years of
substantial earnings and those not receiving noncovered pension benefits would be exempt from
the WEP. The proposal would have provided a rebate payment starting nine months after
enactment for retired-worker and disabled-worker beneficiaries affected by the current WEP (up
to $150 per month), but not for their dependents. The rebate payments would have increased with
cost-of-living adjustments. The proposal’s cost would be covered by transfers from general
revenues. In 2019, OCACT estimated that the legislation would increase program expenditures by
about $34.3 bil ion (mainly from the rebate) between 2020 and 2029, which would be reimbursed
from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. In the long run (75 years), the projected program
cost would increase by an amount equal to 0.02% of taxable payroll, and the projected program
income would increase by the same amount with transfers from the General Fund, thus having no
significant effect on the combined trust funds’ actuarial balance.30
In addition, H.R. 5529 (the Social Security Equity Act of 2019) was introduced by Representative
Adam Smith on December 19, 2019. The bil would have changed the current-law WEP formula
such that the WEP benefit reduction for most affected workers would be lower relative to current
law.31
Legislative Activity on the WEP in the 117th Congress
The Social Security Fairness Act was reintroduced by Representative Rodney Davis on January 4,
2021 (H.R. 82), and Senator Sherrod Brown on April 22, 2021 (S. 1302), respectively. The

29 Ibid.
30 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable Richard Neal, U.S. House, September 30, 2019,
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/RNeal_20190930.pdf. T he projections are based on the intermediate assumptions of
the 2019 Social Security trustees report.
31 H.R. 5529 would have revised the current WEP formula for the PIA computation to (1) lower from 30 to 25 the
number of years of coverage required for exemption from the WEP; (2) alter the determination of partial exemptions
for those who have more than 20 but less than 25 years of coverage; and (3) reduce the amount of earnings required for
a year of coverage (i.e., lower the “ substantial earnings” threshold for a year of coverage).
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 14 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

legislation would repeal the WEP and the GPO for benefits payable for months after December
2021. (See H.R. 141 in the 116th Congress, described above.) In addition, the bil s titled Social
Security 2100: A Sacred Trust were introduced by Representative John B. Larson (H.R. 5723) and
Senator Richard Blumenthal (S. 3071), respectively, on October 26, 2021. Among other
provisions, the bil s would repeal the WEP and the GPO for benefits payable during 2022 through
2026.
While some bil s would repeal the WEP, others would replace the WEP with a new proportional
formula (as described in the section “Legislative Activity on the WEP in the 116th Congress”).
The Public Servants Protection and Fairness Act (H.R. 2337) was reintroduced by Representative
Richard E. Neal on April 1, 2021, and the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act (H.R. 5834)
was reintroduced by Representative Kevin Brady on November 3, 2021. In both cases, the
legislation would apply to individuals who become eligible for Social Security benefits in 2023 or
later.
H.R. 2337 (Representative Neal) includes a benefit guarantee provision that would al ow
individuals to receive the higher of their benefit under the current-law WEP or the proportional
formula. The proposal would also provide a rebate payment starting nine months after enactment
for retired-worker and disabled-worker beneficiaries affected by the current WEP (up to $150 per
month); the rebate payments would increase with cost-of-living adjustments. In 2021, OCACT
estimated that the legislation would increase program expenditures by about $30.6 bil ion (mainly
from the rebate) between 2021 and 2030. The change in net cash flow of $29.0 bil ion (net of the
revenue from income taxation on benefits) would be reimbursed from the General Fund of the
U.S. Treasury. In the long run (75 years), the projected program cost would increase by an
amount equal to 0.02% of taxable payroll, and the projected program income would increase by
the same amount with transfers from the General Fund, thus having no significant effect on the
combined trust funds’ actuarial balance.32
H.R. 5834 (Representative Brady) would al ow individuals becoming eligible during the
transitional period between 2023 and 2061 to receive the higher of their benefit under the current-
law WEP or the proportional formula. For those who become eligible in 2062 and later, benefits
would be based solely on the proportional formula. The proposal would also provide a rebate
payment starting nine months after enactment for workers (up to $100 per month) and their
dependents (up to $50 per month) affected by the current WEP. The rebate payments would
increase with cost-of-living adjustments. In 2021, OCACT estimated that the legislation would
increase program costs by about $27.7 bil ion (or $26.3 bil ion net of the revenue from the
income taxation on benefits) over the period 2022 through 2031. According to OCACT’s
estimates, over the 75-year projection period, future savings from the proportional formula would
offset the cost of the monthly rebate payments and the protection provision during the transitional
period, so the bil would have no significant effect on Social Security’s long-term financial
outlook.33
The Wel being for Every Public Servant Act of 2021 (H.R. 4788) was introduced by
Representative Julia Letlow on July 29, 2021. Under the legislation, individuals whose combined
monthly benefits from Social Security and noncovered public pensions are below a wage-indexed

32 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable Richard Neal, U.S. House, April 1, 2021,
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/RNeal_20210401.pdf. T he estimates are based on the updated baseline of the 2020
Social Security trustees report intermediate projections, reflecting pandemic and recession effects, available at
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/UpdatedBaseline_20201124.pdf.
33 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable Kevin Brady, U.S. House, November 3, 2021,
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT /solvency/KBrady_20211103.pdf. T he estimates are based on the intermediate assumptions
of the 2021 Social Security trustees report .
Congressional Research Service

13

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

amount of $5,500 would be exempt from the WEP. Beneficiaries whose combined monthly
benefits from Social Security and noncovered public pensions are between $5,500 and $6,333
would be subject to a partial WEP reduction. The legislation would apply to benefits payable for
months after the enactment of this act.
Congressional Research Service

14

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Appendix. WEP-Affected Beneficiaries, by State
Table A-1. Percentage of Social Security Beneficiaries in Current Payment Status
Affected by the WEP, by State and Type of Beneficiary, December 2020

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
All Beneficiaries
Workers
Workers
Children
Total
3.0%
4.0%
0.2%
2.2%
Alabama
1.6%
2.3%
0.1%
1.1%
Alaska
11.6%
15.2%
0.5%
6.4%
Arizona
2.7%
3.3%
0.1%
2.0%
Arkansas
1.5%
2.2%
0.1%
0.8%
California
4.4%
5.7%
0.3%
2.8%
Colorado
7.5%
9.5%
0.8%
4.0%
Connecticut
3.0%
3.8%
0.1%
1.6%
Delaware
2.0%
2.5%
0.1%
1.4%
District of Columbia
8.7%
11.9%
0.3%
4.0%
Florida
2.2%
2.8%
0.1%
1.8%
Georgia
3.0%
4.1%
0.1%
1.5%
Hawai
4.1%
4.8%
0.2%
4.3%
Idaho
2.5%
3.2%
0.2%
1.8%
Il inois
4.4%
5.8%
0.1%
2.3%
Indiana
1.3%
1.7%
0.1%
0.9%
Iowa
1.3%
1.6%
0.1%
0.8%
Kansas
1.7%
2.2%
0.1%
1.1%
Kentucky
2.5%
3.8%
0.1%
1.1%
Louisiana
5.2%
8.0%
0.4%
2.5%
Maine
5.5%
7.5%
0.1%
2.5%
Maryland
4.6%
5.9%
0.2%
3.0%
Massachusetts
6.4%
8.7%
0.3%
2.8%
Michigan
1.0%
1.3%
0.1%
0.7%
Minnesota
1.6%
2.0%
0.1%
0.9%
Mississippi
1.4%
2.1%
0.1%
0.9%
Missouri
3.1%
4.3%
0.1%
1.3%
Montana
2.7%
3.4%
0.1%
2.0%
Nebraska
1.6%
2.0%
0.1%
1.0%
Nevada
6.3%
8.0%
0.4%
3.6%
New Hampshire
2.8%
3.7%
0.2%
1.5%
New Jersey
1.4%
1.8%
0.1%
1.2%
New Mexico
3.1%
4.1%
0.2%
2.4%
New York
0.9%
1.2%
0.0%
0.7%
North Carolina
1.5%
1.9%
0.1%
1.0%
North Dakota
1.7%
2.2%
0.1%
1.1%
Congressional Research Service

15

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
All Beneficiaries
Workers
Workers
Children
Ohio
6.4%
8.8%
0.4%
3.2%
Oklahoma
2.2%
3.0%
0.1%
1.4%
Oregon
2.1%
2.6%
0.1%
1.6%
Pennsylvania
1.3%
1.7%
0.1%
1.0%
Rhode Island
2.6%
3.6%
0.1%
1.2%
South Carolina
1.6%
2.2%
0.1%
1.2%
South Dakota
2.2%
2.7%
0.1%
1.3%
Tennessee
1.5%
2.0%
0.1%
1.0%
Texas
4.4%
6.1%
0.2%
2.3%
Utah
3.3%
4.3%
0.2%
2.5%
Vermont
1.7%
2.2%
0.0%
1.2%
Virginia
3.1%
4.0%
0.1%
2.4%
Washington
2.5%
3.1%
0.1%
2.2%
West Virginia
1.3%
2.0%
0.1%
0.9%
Wisconsin
1.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.7%
Wyoming
2.2%
2.8%
0.2%
1.4%
Outlying Areas and
Foreign Countries
6.8%
8.7%
0.3%
9.7%
Source: CRS analysis of data from the fol owing sources: SSA, ORES, Table B, January 2021 (unpublished); and
SSA, ORES, Congressional Statistics, 2020, released May 2021, https://best.ssa.gov/policy/docs/factsheets/
cong_stats/index.html.
Notes: The column “Al Beneficiaries” includes survivor beneficiaries who are not subject to the WEP. The row
“Outlying Areas and Foreign Countries” includes a smal number of Social Security beneficiaries whose state or
area is unknown.

Author Information

Zhe Li

Analyst in Social Policy

Acknowledgments
This report was previously authored by multiple former CRS analysts. SSA’s Office of Research,
Evaluation, and Statistics provided unpublished data on beneficiaries affected by the WEP.
Congressional Research Service

16

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
98-35 · VERSION 55 · UPDATED
17