Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

March 26, 2003 – February 28, 2024 98-35

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination
Provision (WEP)
Updated February 28, 2024
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 cash benefits 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 all
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 “windfall” 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 2023, about 2.1 million people (or about 3% of all Social Security beneficiaries)
were affected by the WEP. Those workers mainly include state and local government employees
covered by alternative staff-retirement systems as well 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 substantially 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 windfall when applied to individual cases.
Recent legislation has generally proposed either to eliminate the provision for all 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 “windfall,” 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 generally 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
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.

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 2024, a worker earns one credit for each $1,730 of
covered earnings, up to a maximum of four credits for covered earnings of $6,920 or more. Earnings credits are also
called quarters of coverage. See Social Security Administration (SSA), How You Earn Credits, Publication No. 05-
10072, 2024, https://best.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.
5 The number of benefit computation years for disabled or deceased workers may be fewer than 35 years.
Congressional Research Service

1

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

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 2024, the PIA is determined as follows
in Table 1.
Table 1. Social Security Benefit Formula for
Workers Who First Become Eligible in 2024
Factor
Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME)
90%
of the first $1,174, plus
32%
of AIME over $1,174 and through $7,078 (if any), plus
15%
of AIME over $7,078 (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 “windfall.”9

6 The 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 The formula itself and the factors in the formula are fixed in law, while 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 for a worker with an earliest eligibility year (ELY) in 2024 is different from the
benefit for a worker with an ELY in any other year. For bend point amount for years prior to 2024, see SSA, Office of
the Chief Actuary (OCACT), “Benefit Formula Bend Points,” https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/bendpoints.html.
8 The replacement rate is the ratio of the program benefit to a worker’s prior earnings.
9 The windfall elimination provision (WEP) is sometimes confused with the government pension offset (GPO), which
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 Government Pension Offset (GPO).
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 7 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

How the Windfall Elimination Provision Works
A different Social Security benefit formula, known informally as the windfall elimination
provision, applies to certain workers who are entitled to Social Security benefits as well 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 illustrates how
the regular benefit formula and the WEP work in 2024 for someone with a 40% factor.
Table 2. Hypothetical Scenario: PIA for a Worker with AIME of $2,500 Who
Becomes Eligible in 2024 and Has 20 Years of Substantial Coverage
Regular Formula
WEP Formula
90% of first $1,174
$1,056.60 40% of first $1,174
$469.60
32% of earnings over $1,174
424.32 32% of earnings over $1,174
424.32
and through $7,078
and through $7,078
15% over $7,078
0.00 15% over $7,078
0.00
Total after rounding
$1,480.90 Total after rounding
$893.90
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 $587 lower under the WEP than under the regular benefit
formula ($1,480.90 minus $893.90). 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
$1,174, the WEP reduction remains a flat $587 per month. For example, if the worker had an
AIME of $4,000 instead of $2,500, the WEP reduction would still be $587 per month. The WEP
therefore causes a proportionally 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
formula for workers with 21 to 29 years of substantial covered employment, as shown in Table
3.12

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. The 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 $2,500 and a monthly benefit of $1,480.90 under the regular
benefit formula in 2024, the WEP reduction of $587 represents a cut of approximately 40% to the regular formula
monthly benefit amount. By comparison, a worker with an AIME of $5,000 would be entitled to a PIA of $2280.90
under the 2024 regular benefit formula, and the same WEP reduction of $587 per month would represent a 26%
reduction in this worker’s monthly benefit amount.
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. The old law maximum taxable earnings base refers to the earnings base that would have been in effect had
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

3

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

Table 3. Maximum WEP Reduction for Workers Who Become Eligible in 2024, 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
2024a ($):

587.0
528.3
469.6
410.9
352.2
293.5
234.8
176.1
117.4
58.7
0.0
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 2024 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
2024, see SSA, “Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) Chart,” https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/wep-
chart.html.
Types of Workers Affected by the WEP
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);
• 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;

the Social Security Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-216) not been enacted. In 2024, the old law taxable earnings base is
equal to $125,100. Therefore, to earn credit for one year of substantial employment under the WEP, a worker would
have to earn at least $31,275 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)

• 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 2023, about 2.1 million
Social Security beneficiaries were affected by the WEP (Table 4). The overwhelming majority of
those affected (about 95%) were retired workers. Approximately 3% of all Social Security
beneficiaries (including disabled workers and dependent beneficiaries) and 4% of all retired-
worker beneficiaries were affected by the WEP in December 2023.18 Of retired workers affected
by the WEP, approximately 53% 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 2023

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
Total
Workers
Workers
Children
Total
2,055,476
1,956,149
11,639
87,688
Alabama
17,345
16,508
142
695
Alaska
13,690
13,250
51
389
Arizona
39,670
38,001
193
1,476
Arkansas
10,715
10,287
104
324
California
290,624
277,667
1,508
11,449
Colorado
76,228
73,711
771
1,746
Connecticut
22,548
21,913
103
532
Delaware
4,653
4,512
21
120
District of Columbia
6,789
6,620
28
141
Florida
110,645
105,263
503
4,879
Georgia
58,792
56,957
334
1,501
Hawaii
11,829
11,210
34
585

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. The 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 The 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 10, 2022,
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 Type 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
Idaho
9,998
9,546
62
390
Il inois
105,152
102,029
357
2,766
Indiana
17,978
17,227
132
619
Iowa
8,302
8,027
53
222
Kansas
9,603
9,237
77
289
Kentucky
25,977
25,147
183
647
Louisiana
53,863
51,516
533
1,814
Maine
21,025
20,480
79
466
Maryland
45,461
43,872
187
1,402
Massachusetts
92,934
90,385
563
1,986
Michigan
23,327
22,204
191
932
Minnesota
16,264
15,786
67
411
Mississippi
9,486
9,116
53
317
Missouri
42,660
41,651
211
798
Montana
6,784
6,521
35
228
Nebraska
5,655
5,465
38
152
Nevada
39,299
38,105
198
996
New Hampshire
9,604
9,300
77
227
New Jersey
22,689
21,432
193
1,064
New Mexico
14,074
13,376
116
582
New York
31,825
29,924
200
1,701
North Carolina
31,898
30,694
163
1,041
North Dakota
2,324
2,250
9
65
Ohio
167,615
162,005
1,409
4,201
Oklahoma
17,150
16,421
144
585
Oregon
18,882
18,138
72
672
Pennsylvania
35,746
34,137
241
1,368
Rhode Island
6,507
6,325
49
133
South Carolina
19,760
19,002
101
657
South Dakota
3,947
3,830
14
103
Tennessee
22,944
22,044
137
763
Texas
215,773
207,413
1,109
7,251
Utah
14,367
13,558
66
743
Vermont
2,726
2,631
8
87
Virginia
46,498
44,496
113
1,889
Washington
35,417
33,650
114
1,653
West Virginia
6,120
5,785
54
281
Wisconsin
12,897
12,456
50
391
Wyoming
2,803
2,717
18
68
Outlying Areas and
116,614
92,352
371
23,891
Foreign Countries
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 17 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Source: CRS, based on unpublished data from Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of Research,
Evaluation, and Statistics (ORES), Table B, February 2024.
Table 5. Number of Social Security Worker Beneficiaries in Current Payment Status
with Benefits Affected by WEP, by Gender and Type of Beneficiary, December 2023
Disabled
Gender
All Workers
Retired Workers
Workers
All Beneficiaries
1,967,788
1,956,149
11,639
Women
922,459
916,751
5,708
Men
1,045,329
1,039,398
5,931
Source: CRS, based on unpublished data from SSA, ORES, Table W01, February 2024.
For data on the share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the WEP in December 2022, by
state, see Table A-1 and Table A-2 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 bill 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.
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 well off
because by definition they also receive pensions from noncovered work. The guarantee provision

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

link to page 13 link to page 13 Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

ensures that the reduction in Social Security benefits cannot exceed half of the pension from
noncovered work, which protects people with small 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 of the WEP believe the provision is unfair because it substantially reduces a
benefit that certain 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.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 ($1,174 in 2024), it causes a proportionally larger
reduction in benefits for workers with lower AIMEs and benefit amounts than for others. Second,
a high earner is more likely than a low earner to cross the “substantial work” threshold for
accumulating years of covered earnings (in 2024 this threshold is $31,275 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 all
earnings, covered and noncovered. Brown and Weisbenner 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 an adjustment in the WEP formula
applied to the AIME.
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 periodically 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

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/REPORTS/WEP_Position_Paper_2015.pdf.
21 Jeffrey R. Brown and Scott Weisbenner, “The Distributional Effects of the Social Security Windfall Elimination
Provision,” Journal of Pension Economics 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:
Comparing Current Law with Proposed Proportional Formulas.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 14

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

for benefits in 2020, by noncovered pension amount and gender. As of December 2023, about
22% of those beneficiaries received a noncovered pension amount of less than $1,000 per month,
approximately 46% received a monthly amount between $1,000 and $3,999, and 31% 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 2023
Among Social Security beneficiaries with first eligibility in 2020

Source: CRS, based on unpublished data from SSA’s ORES, Table W12, February 2024.
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. The sum of components may not equal to 100% due to rounding.
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 2023, among all Social Security worker beneficiaries who were affected by
the WEP, about 82% had 20 or fewer YOCs (substantial covered earnings under Social
Security).23 Usually, 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 smaller Social Security benefit. In December 2023, among
WEP-affected beneficiaries who first became eligible for Social Security in 2020, about 30% of
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 2023, among WEP-affected beneficiaries
who became eligible for Social Security in 2020, about 9% 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 6% received between $1,000-

23 CRS, based on unpublished data from Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of Research, Evaluation, and
Statistics (ORES), Tables W01 and W06, February 2024.
Congressional Research Service

9

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

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 2023
Among Social Security beneficiaries with first eligibility in 2020

Source: CRS, based on unpublished data from SSA’s ORES, Table W16, February 2024.
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.
Legislative Activity on the WEP in the
118th Congress24
In the 118h Congress, several proposals were introduced that would repeal or amend the WEP.
These proposals are briefly described below.
The Social Security Fairness Act of 2023 was introduced by Representative Garret Graves on
January 9, 2023 (H.R. 82), and the Social Security Fairness Act was introduced by Senator
Sherrod Brown on March 1, 2023 (S. 597). The legislation would repeal 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.25 The elimination of the WEP and GPO
would apply to benefits payable for months after December 2023. In 2022, the Congressional
Budget Office projected that eliminating only the WEP would have cost $88 billion over the
period 2022-2032 and that eliminating both the WEP and the GPO would have cost $183 billion

24 As of February 14, 2024.
25 See CRS Report RL32453, Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO). See also CRS In Focus IF10203,
Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO).
Congressional Research Service

10

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

over the period 2022-2032.26 In the same year, SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT)
projected that eliminating both the WEP and the GPO would have reduced the long-range
actuarial balance (i.e., would have increased the net long-term cost) of the combined Social
Security trust funds by 0.12% of taxable payroll.27
The bills titled Social Security 2100 Act were introduced by Senator Richard Blumenthal (S.
2280) on July 12, 2023 and Representative John B. Larson (H.R. 4583) on July 14, 2023,
respectively. Among other provisions, the bills would temporarily repeal the WEP and the GPO
for benefits payable during 2025 through 2034. OCACT estimated that enactment of this
provision alone would increase the net long-term cost by 0.02% of taxable payroll.28
Since 2004, introduced 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 all
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 all 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 million beneficiaries who
are not affected by the current WEP would receive a lower benefit using the proportional
formula.29 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 generally attempt 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 Public Servants Protection and Fairness
Act of 2023 (H.R. 4260) and the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2023 (H.R. 5342), as
described below in this section.
The Public Servants Protection and Fairness Act of 2023 (H.R. 4260) was introduced by
Representative Richard E. Neal on June 21, 2023. The legislation would replace the WEP with a
new proportional formula for individuals who become eligible for Social Security benefits in
2025 or later. The bill includes a benefit guarantee provision that would allow 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-

26 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate: H.R. 82, Social Security Fairness Act of 2021, September 20,
2022, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58488.
27 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable Rodney Davis and the Honorable Abigail
Spanberger, U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2022, https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/
DavisSpanberger_20220720.pdf. The projection was based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2022 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). In the short term, OCACT projected that the legislation repealing
the WEP and the GPO would have increased program costs by $146 billion over the period 2022-2031.
28 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable John Larson, U.S. House of Representatives,
July 12, 2023, https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/JLarson_20230712.pdf. The projection was based on the
intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Social Security trustees report.
29 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable Richard Neal, U.S. House, June 21, 2023,
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/RNeal_20230621.pdf. The projections are based on the intermediate assumptions
of the 2023 Social Security trustees report.
Congressional Research Service

11

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

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, be exempt from most benefit
adjustments under Social Security, and be excluded in determining eligibility and the benefit
amount under the Supplemental Security Income program. In 2023, OCACT estimated that the
legislation would increase program expenditures by about $31.8 billion (mainly from the rebate)
between 2023 and 2032. The change in net cash flow of $30.1 billion (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.30
The Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2023 (H.R. 5342) was introduced by
Representative Jodey C. Arrington on September 5, 2023. Similar to H.R. 4260, the legislation
would replace the WEP with the new proportional formula for individuals who become eligible
for Social Security benefits in 2025 or later. Individuals becoming eligible during the transitional
period between 2025 and 2067 would receive the higher of their benefit under the current-law
WEP or the proportional formula. For those who become eligible in 2068 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 and be exempt from most benefit adjustments under
Social Security. In 2023, OCACT estimated that the legislation would increase program costs by
about $25.2 billion (or $23.9 billion net of the revenue from the income taxation on benefits) over
the period 2023-2032. 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 bill would result in a
negligible (i.e., less than 0.005% of taxable payroll) increase in the combined trust funds’
actuarial balance.31

30 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable Richard Neal, U.S. House, June 21, 2023,
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/RNeal_20230621.pdf. The estimates are based on the updated baseline of the
2023 Social Security trustees report intermediate projections.
31 Letter from Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, SSA, to the Honorable Jodey Arrington, U.S. House, September 5,
2023, https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/JArrington_20231016.pdf. The estimates are based on the intermediate
assumptions of the 2023 Social Security trustees report.
Congressional Research Service

12

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Appendix. WEP-Affected Beneficiaries, by State
Table A-1. Number of Social Security Beneficiaries in Current Payment Status with
Benefits Affected by WEP, by State and Type of Beneficiary: December 2022

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
Total
Workers
Workers
Children
Total
2,013,310
1,910,130
11,870
91,310
Alabama
17,594
16,688
154
752
Alaska
13,221
12,729
59
433
Arizona
39,074
37,314
189
1,571
Arkansas
10,694
10,246
111
337
California
283,270
269,673
1,556
12,041
Colorado
73,103
70,403
736
1,964
Connecticut
21,790
21,134
97
559
Delaware
4,586
4,425
26
135
District of Columbia
6,932
6,743
36
153
Florida
109,737
104,171
541
5,025
Georgia
57,854
55,901
347
1,606
Hawaii
11,671
11,023
37
611
Idaho
9,737
9,265
60
412
Il inois
102,391
99,068
356
2,967
Indiana
17,848
17,058
134
656
Iowa
8,319
8,022
52
245
Kansas
9,552
9,170
77
305
Kentucky
25,601
24,735
181
685
Louisiana
52,155
49,704
566
1,885
Maine
20,498
19,909
81
508
Maryland
45,942
44,195
195
1,552
Massachusetts
88,974
86,282
573
2,119
Michigan
22,966
21,810
181
975
Minnesota
16,349
15,826
70
453
Mississippi
9,535
9,121
70
344
Missouri
41,904
40,826
212
866
Montana
6,688
6,409
30
249
Nebraska
5,643
5,425
39
179
Nevada
37,905
36,670
209
1,026
New Hampshire
9,364
9,017
80
267
New Jersey
22,793
21,477
187
1,129
New Mexico
14,067
13,331
111
625
New York
32,062
30,056
212
1,794
North Carolina
31,736
30,489
157
1,090
North Dakota
2,339
2,252
10
77
Congressional Research Service

13

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
Total
Workers
Workers
Children
Ohio
161,739
155,906
1,388
4,445
Oklahoma
17,166
16,389
147
630
Oregon
18,805
18,008
69
728
Pennsylvania
35,955
34,215
252
1,488
Rhode Island
6,305
6,114
52
139
South Carolina
19,597
18,796
98
703
South Dakota
3,959
3,836
14
109
Tennessee
22,626
21,674
134
818
Texas
208,368
199,750
1,115
7,503
Utah
14,373
13,507
74
792
Vermont
2,722
2,607
10
105
Virginia
47,152
44,985
122
2,045
Washington
35,150
33,231
138
1,781
West Virginia
6,120
5,756
57
307
Wisconsin
12,790
12,306
59
425
Wyoming
2,727
2,633
17
77
Outlying Areas and
113,862
89,850
392
23,620
Foreign Countries
Source: CRS, based on unpublished data from SSA, ORES, Table B, February 2023.
Table A-2. Percentage of Social Security Beneficiaries in Current Payment Status
Affected by the WEP, by State and Type of Beneficiary, December 2022

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
All Beneficiaries
Workers
Workers
Children
Total
3.1%
3.9%
0.2%
2.3%
Alabama
1.5%
2.1%
0.1%
1.0%
Alaska
11.8%
15.0%
0.6%
6.5%
Arizona
2.7%
3.3%
0.1%
2.0%
Arkansas
1.5%
2.1%
0.1%
0.8%
California
4.5%
5.7%
0.3%
2.8%
Colorado
7.8%
9.6%
0.9%
4.0%
Connecticut
3.1%
3.9%
0.1%
1.6%
Delaware
2.0%
2.4%
0.1%
1.4%
District of Columbia
8.3%
11.0%
0.3%
4.2%
Florida
2.2%
2.7%
0.1%
1.9%
Georgia
3.0%
4.0%
0.1%
1.5%
Hawaii
4.0%
4.7%
0.2%
4.1%
Idaho
2.5%
3.2%
0.1%
1.9%
Il inois
4.5%
5.8%
0.1%
2.4%
Indiana
1.3%
1.7%
0.1%
0.9%
Congressional Research Service

14

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

Type of Beneficiary
Retired
Disabled
Spouses and
State
All Beneficiaries
Workers
Workers
Children
Iowa
1.2%
1.6%
0.1%
0.8%
Kansas
1.6%
2.1%
0.1%
1.0%
Kentucky
2.5%
3.7%
0.1%
1.0%
Louisiana
5.6%
8.3%
0.4%
2.6%
Maine
5.6%
7.5%
0.2%
2.5%
Maryland
4.4%
5.5%
0.2%
3.0%
Massachusetts
6.8%
8.9%
0.3%
2.8%
Michigan
1.0%
1.3%
0.1%
0.7%
Minnesota
1.5%
1.8%
0.1%
0.8%
Mississippi
1.4%
2.0%
0.1%
0.8%
Missouri
3.1%
4.3%
0.1%
1.3%
Montana
2.6%
3.3%
0.1%
2.0%
Nebraska
1.5%
2.0%
0.1%
1.0%
Nevada
6.5%
8.2%
0.4%
3.6%
New Hampshire
2.9%
3.7%
0.2%
1.5%
New Jersey
1.4%
1.7%
0.1%
1.2%
New Mexico
3.1%
4.0%
0.2%
2.3%
New York
0.9%
1.1%
0.0%
0.8%
North Carolina
1.4%
1.8%
0.1%
1.0%
North Dakota
1.6%
2.1%
0.1%
1.1%
Ohio
6.7%
9.0%
0.4%
3.2%
Oklahoma
2.1%
2.8%
0.1%
1.3%
Oregon
2.0%
2.5%
0.1%
1.6%
Pennsylvania
1.2%
1.6%
0.1%
1.0%
Rhode Island
2.7%
3.6%
0.2%
1.1%
South Carolina
1.6%
2.1%
0.1%
1.2%
South Dakota
2.1%
2.5%
0.1%
1.3%
Tennessee
1.5%
2.0%
0.1%
1.0%
Texas
4.6%
6.1%
0.2%
2.3%
Utah
3.2%
4.1%
0.2%
2.4%
Vermont
1.7%
2.2%
0.1%
1.2%
Virginia
2.9%
3.7%
0.1%
2.3%
Washington
2.5%
3.0%
0.1%
2.2%
West Virginia
1.3%
1.9%
0.1%
0.8%
Wisconsin
1.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.7%
Wyoming
2.2%
2.8%
0.1%
1.3%
Outlying Areas and
7.2%
9.1%
0.3%
10.5%
Foreign Countries
Source: CRS analysis of data from the fol owing sources: SSA, ORES, Table B, February 2023 (unpublished); and
SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2023, Table 5.J2.
Notes: The column “All Beneficiaries” includes survivor beneficiaries who are not subject to the WEP.
Congressional Research Service

15

Social Security: The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

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.

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 not 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 60 · UPDATED
16

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Feb. 28, 2024

HTML · PDF

Feb. 13, 2023

HTML · PDF

Sep. 19, 2022

HTML · PDF

Mar. 7, 2022

HTML · PDF

Nov. 16, 2021