If someone, for whatever reason, did not pay Social Security taxes, should they receive full Social Security retirement benefits?  

Congress just passed the Social Security Fairness Act (though it is still awaiting sleepy Joe’s signature) which, in its simplest form, says “yes.” 

Specifically, it repeals the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO).  

Details of these programs are readily available online, but in essence they reduced Social Security benefits for some public sector employees who enjoyed a non-covered pension. That is, a pension from an employer (usually state and local government agencies) that doesn’t withhold Social Security taxes (i.e.  FICA).

Here’s one list of the states that provide their public employees a generous retirement offering but not Social Security coverage.  

The new Congressional act’s name may be as much a misnomer as the deceptively named Inflation Reduction Act.  That’s because Social Security is supposed to be an earned benefit.  Fairness would prevail if benefits are disbursed based upon income earned and on the Social Security taxes that employees paid.  

A bill that provides for back payments to public sector pension recipients who were subjected to WEP provisions is UNFAIR to those who’ve paid in and may now suffer steeper benefit cuts if Social Security becomes insolvent.  The increased payouts to those who didn’t earn them – paying no or minimal FICA taxes in the jobs they willingly performed for years -- could hasten that eventuality by up to six months.

Some of the public sector workers affected by WEP include police officers, firefighters, and teachers. The first two are the very definition of “essential workers,” and they deserve the utmost regard.  But do they deserve special dispensation and retirement compensation relative to other essential workers who worked hard their entire lives -- and dutifully payed FICA taxes?

Do they deserve back pay?! Where does this special treatment of favored groups by the plundering panderers in Congress end?

If anyone is “special,” perhaps being the most essential of all, it is those who serve honorably in the Armed Forces.  For many of them, their base pay is but a portion of their entire compensation package.  That’s because they also earn various allowances and special pays that are adjusted based on duty type (combat, for example), location (housing availability and costs), dependent status, and other considerations.  

Military disbursing personnel disburse leave and earnings statements along with documents that enumerate elements of their total pay.  The additional documents, perhaps part of retention efforts, may include favorable comparisons to corresponding civilian occupations (where there is some correspondence) that don’t have the extra benefits.  At least that was the case when I served in a position where there were somewhat comparable civilian occupations.  

Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), can comprise over 30% of total military pay.   As allowances, they are not considered pay, per se. They are not taxable. They are not included in Social Security retirement earnings formulas.   Instead, Social Security calculates their retirement benefits based solely on their base pay, the part that is subject to FICA tax.  

So, service members may be advised (by those trying to get them to re-up, perhaps) that their total pay is the equivalent of, for example, a $75,000 per-annum civilian job. 

However, at least 30% of that (in many cases) is not taxed, and therefore not computed by Social Security in their base earnings formulas.

Meanwhile, some public sector teachers, for goodness sakes (who too often misguide our kids with leftist poppycock), are potentially eligible to receive Social Security benefits retroactively thanks to the Social Security Unfairness Act.  

For FICA, the often pay NADA, so getting recompense makes no sense.

Equality (not some concocted notion of equity masquerading as “fairness”) preferably prevails.  However, if anyone deserves favorable consideration it is our military members.  Their gross pay – including all allowances – should be the basis upon which Social Security calculates their retirement benefits. 

Maybe they didn’t pay FICA on their various allowances, so their total “pay” wasn’t reported to the IRS. However, with the aid of an AI bot, the human disbursers can update their records forthwith.  

As much as we admire our police officers, there should be no retroactive social security benefits for them if they didn’t pay FICA.  Nor for firefighters who didn’t pay. And certainly not teachers who are failing our kids.  Military personnel don’t complain that much, tending to be stoic.  If anyone is to be treated “fairly” by Social Security computations, it is they.  

Even if we are resigned to this unfair government largesse, the newly passed Social Security Fairness Act may yet live up to its name.  There are fewer veterans in Congress now, but perhaps one of them can step up to House chamber’s rostrum and propose an amendment.   An amendment that stipulates that Social Security is compelled to compute a service member’s entire pay package in their earnings formulas.  

Don’t provide pecuniary benefits to the likes of public sector teachers (silly gooses, they often are), that are not available (in similar or at least comparable form) to our military members. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License